Re: FFI beginner question The SQLite3 API is very well documented, and the UDBC-SQLite3 project ( https://github.com/astares/Pharo-UDBC) is a nice and clean binding to it. Look in UDBCSQLite3Library class. Vince On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:15 PM <pharo-users-request@lists.pharo.org> wrote:
Send Pharo-users mailing list submissions to pharo-users@lists.pharo.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pharo-users-request@lists.pharo.org
You can reach the person managing the list at pharo-users-owner@lists.pharo.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Pharo-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. FFI beginner question (Richard O'Keefe) 2. Re: Code of Conduct (Richard O'Keefe) 3. Re: FFI beginner question (Brainstorms) 4. Re: Code of Conduct (Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas) 5. Re: Code of Conduct (Steve Quezadas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:56:50 +1200 From: "Richard O'Keefe" <raoknz@gmail.com> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> Subject: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question Message-ID: <CABcYAd+DggCnoSaQr+D54Hc5= Mb_ToRw8+o+saeEonipyMckzw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I am developing a Smalltalk interface to an existing C library which I intend to make generally available. Naturally I am doing this in my own Smalltalk system first, where it's unsurprisingly easy for me. But when I have it working, I'd like to make a Pharo port available.
I have never used the Foreign Function Interface in Pharo before and don't even know where to start.
What should I read first? Is there a model project to imitate?
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:40:46 +1200 From: "Richard O'Keefe" <raoknz@gmail.com> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct Message-ID: < CABcYAd+Xgn45++FKgDogZgEGzQfpPCg7+ZY4t+RaPxYSYLgctQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of authoritarian vs libertarian. And this is very relevant to the community. It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority. It's a question of vs ???????? vs goodspeak. And this is very relevant to the community also.
Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it, and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility, that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that is bad too.
Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off. But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.
A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring Erlang up. http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones,
is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code
repository and the PR. See you there.
On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there
haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs
left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <
offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free,
libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This
should be a democracy.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <
offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to
many".
Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on that and invest time and effort accordingly.
Cheers,
Offray
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:41:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Brainstorms <wild.ideas@gmail.com> To: pharo-users@lists.pharo.org Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question Message-ID: <1569199269309-0.post@n4.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm also interested in this...
Any plans to draft a Pharo booklet on this subject?
-Ted
-- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:37:19 -0500 From: Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> To: pharo-users@lists.pharo.org Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct Message-ID: <ded9afcf-a557-9a0f-1aac-e45262b36d1a@mutabit.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I agreed that the last decision should be on the ones who made the bulk of the work. But I don't see relationship between a code of conduct and not being able to talk about code or contributions quality. Just looking at the FAQ of the original CoC that originated the whole think, I see a lot of answers about the stuff being said on this thread (minorities, left wing progressive agenda, diminish of code quality because of it, mixing tech with non-tech stuff), so I will refer to it, because as I said, I think that the PR should be the place for the bulk of the discussion:
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq
The FAQ name goes pretty well, considering the amount of repeated arguments they deal with. I think that many of the FAQ apply for other CoCs, despite of the possible different nature of CoC for the online community and the CoC for other face to face events. BTW, Thanks for the links, both provide a better context for the emergence of the CoC in the Erlang community.
As said, I will try to see for specific contributions in the correspondent PR in the repo, and made some if I have a one. For the moment I'm trying to make my contributions on this thread, but is taking a lot.
Cheers,
Offray
On 22/09/19 7:40 p.?m., Richard O'Keefe wrote:
This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of authoritarian vs libertarian. And this is very relevant to the community. It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority. It's a question of vs ???????? vs goodspeak. And this is very relevant to the community also.
Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it, and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility, that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that is bad too.
Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off. But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.
A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring Erlang up. http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.
On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to
many".
Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on that and invest time and effort accordingly.
Cheers,
Offray
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:14:26 -0700 From: Steve Quezadas <steveeq1@gmail.com> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct Message-ID: <CAJzdPQV0YZXWePmfJ_PNbmBZeWq_Ov-St1iG9h8hd4dx=9CN= w@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
But the low rate at which marginalized people are recruited, and the high rate at which they leave the industry <https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/>, point to a larger cultural and systemic problem.
Your interpreting this information with a SJW lens. Otherwise known as "confirmation bias". Look at the low proportion of blacks and women who apply for CS majors in college. Are you going to say that colleges are using discriminatory practices to keep blacks and women from taking CS classes? Maybe the bulk of the low recruitment statistics is simply due to non-interest within that sub-culture.
I believe this CoC is a way to wedge left-wing politics in a non-political maillist. I want it out.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:37 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
I agreed that the last decision should be on the ones who made the bulk of the work. But I don't see relationship between a code of conduct and not being able to talk about code or contributions quality. Just looking at the FAQ of the original CoC that originated the whole think, I see a lot of answers about the stuff being said on this thread (minorities, left wing progressive agenda, diminish of code quality because of it, mixing tech with non-tech stuff), so I will refer to it, because as I said, I think that the PR should be the place for the bulk of the discussion:
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq
The FAQ name goes pretty well, considering the amount of repeated arguments they deal with. I think that many of the FAQ apply for other CoCs, despite of the possible different nature of CoC for the online community and the CoC for other face to face events. BTW, Thanks for the links, both provide a better context for the emergence of the CoC in the Erlang community.
As said, I will try to see for specific contributions in the correspondent PR in the repo, and made some if I have a one. For the moment I'm trying to make my contributions on this thread, but is taking a lot.
Cheers,
Offray
On 22/09/19 7:40 p. m., Richard O'Keefe wrote:
This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of authoritarian vs libertarian. And this is very relevant to the community. It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority. It's a question of vs ???????? vs goodspeak. And this is very relevant to the community also.
Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it, and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility, that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that is bad too.
Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off. But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.
A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring Erlang up. http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.
On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas < offray.luna@mutabit.com> wrote:
On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to
many".
Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on that and invest time and effort accordingly.
Cheers,
Offray