Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] [OT] (slightly) What makes other dialects "enjoyable" for you? (WAS: difference between double dispatch...)
Hi Esteban, We talk this privately a couple of weeks ago, but I thought it was worth writing again here. As for other IDE's being enjoyable, I can only talk about VASmalltalk. If there is ONE thing I enjoy from it, is the stability. May be ugly, may be too-windows, may be full of menus you don't understand what they do, but it's really rock solid. Pharo has been doing a LOT of progress on so many areas and its expected to decrease a bit on stability. Unless you are Oracle and can hire 100 engineers. So, my small recommendation to you back then was to make at least ONE release (called LTS or whatever) were you just focus on stability and bugs. No new features. No new framework. Just stability. Make it rock solid. Then after that release, you can keep moving forward, but that would give companies and really really stable Pharo to rely on. Best, -- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck@gmail.com Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/
+1 on the long term support and stability topic. ... and if I remember correctly, either Stephane or Marcus once talked about plans for some kind of LTS version at ESUG two or three years ago...? Am 11.04.19 um 15:29 schrieb Mariano Martinez Peck:
Hi Esteban,
We talk this privately a couple of weeks ago, but I thought it was worth writing again here. As for other IDE's being enjoyable, I can only talk about VASmalltalk. If there is ONE thing I enjoy from it, is the stability. May be ugly, may be too-windows, may be full of menus you don't understand what they do, but it's really rock solid. Pharo has been doing a LOT of progress on so many areas and its expected to decrease a bit on stability. Unless you are Oracle and can hire 100 engineers. So, my small recommendation to you back then was to make at least ONE release (called LTS or whatever) were you just focus on stability and bugs. No new features. No new framework. Just stability. Make it rock solid. Then after that release, you can keep moving forward, but that would give companies and really really stable Pharo to rely on.
Best, -- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck@gmail.com <mailto:marianopeck@gmail.com> Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
I second that. A locked up Pharo IDE is infuriating. A dead/broken keyboard is proof of this. I have been using Jetbrains IDEA for a while now and love the embedded terminal, the Ctrl-Tab for tools and Ctrl-f12 for jumping to a method + the shift shift global search (kind of spotter) that matches on like WCH which could find WebComponentHandler for example. And refactorings that cover a ton of situations neatly. Cool feature is also restart of a test when in the middle of debugging. Phil On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 15:33 jtuchel@objektfabrik.de <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
... and if I remember correctly, either Stephane or Marcus once talked about plans for some kind of LTS version at ESUG two or three years ago...?
Am 11.04.19 um 15:29 schrieb Mariano Martinez Peck:
Hi Esteban,
We talk this privately a couple of weeks ago, but I thought it was worth writing again here. As for other IDE's being enjoyable, I can only talk about VASmalltalk. If there is ONE thing I enjoy from it, is the stability. May be ugly, may be too-windows, may be full of menus you don't understand what they do, but it's really rock solid. Pharo has been doing a LOT of progress on so many areas and its expected to decrease a bit on stability. Unless you are Oracle and can hire 100 engineers. So, my small recommendation to you back then was to make at least ONE release (called LTS or whatever) were you just focus on stability and bugs. No new features. No new framework. Just stability. Make it rock solid. Then after that release, you can keep moving forward, but that would give companies and really really stable Pharo to rely on.
Best,
-- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck@gmail.com Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
+1 on the long term support idea. Changing an application every year to support a new version of Pharo is a nonstarter for most of my clients. /*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 11, 2019, at 06:33, "jtuchel@objektfabrik.de" <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
How much are you ready to pay for LTS? BTW Pharo on knowroaming servers is super super super stable. This is the guy in charge of pharo there that told us this during Pharodays. Stef
On 12 Apr 2019, at 03:06, john pfersich <jpfersich@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on the long term support idea. Changing an application every year to support a new version of Pharo is a nonstarter for most of my clients.
/*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 11, 2019, at 06:33, "jtuchel@objektfabrik.de" <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
So you earn money with pharo? Isnât that a bit risky if you donât have someone to ask if you have a critical problem? That is what you get when you pay into the consortium. Is it that you demand that from the mailing list and the people that work in their free time? Norbert
Am 12.04.2019 um 03:06 schrieb john pfersich <jpfersich@gmail.com>:
+1 on the long term support idea. Changing an application every year to support a new version of Pharo is a nonstarter for most of my clients.
/*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 11, 2019, at 06:33, "jtuchel@objektfabrik.de" <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
Hi, We use Pharo as a development environment and we run a business. So, for us stability and an LTS version makes sense. I think there should be a compromise. The Ubuntu LTS model is a compromise in a sense because the releases between the LTS versions include the newer / more experimental stuff.
From what I understand, the fork of Pharo from Squeak was intended to provide more stability and make Pharo an environment that businesses like us could use. This means that there must be a reasonable degree of stability in Pharo. I also understand that the goal was to get to a minimal Pharo and build up by loading what you need on top of that. And other reasons.
Our experience was that Pharo 2 was quite stable, Pharo 3 was even better. We lived on Pharo 3 for a very long time. Pharo 4 broke, 5 was better and we're now on 6.1. None of these are as good as Pharo 3 was from a stability point of view. I understand the innovation dilemma and wish there was a clean answer, but believe we need both. I wish I could get a tiny gap to work on Pharo itself and not have this relentless focus on survival in the business. I thank you all for your hard work on Pharo. Cheers Otto Behrens +27 82 802 2375 [image: FINWorks] [image: FINWorks] <http://za.linkedin.com/in/waltherbehrens> www.finworks.biz On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:26 AM Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
So you earn money with pharo? Isnât that a bit risky if you donât have someone to ask if you have a critical problem? That is what you get when you pay into the consortium. Is it that you demand that from the mailing list and the people that work in their free time?
Norbert
Am 12.04.2019 um 03:06 schrieb john pfersich <jpfersich@gmail.com>:
+1 on the long term support idea. Changing an application every year to support a new version of Pharo is a nonstarter for most of my clients.
/*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 11, 2019, at 06:33, "jtuchel@objektfabrik.de" < jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
Well, I run a consulting firm and if I could make money from developing software on Pharo, Iâd be willing to join the Consortium as a Gold member. Iâd love to develop using Smalltalk. I do proof of concepts in Smalltalk frequently and deploy in other languages. I would think that a company using Smalltalk would be willing to pay thousands or ten thousands for long term support, depending on the application. I mean one seat of Jetbrainsâ development tools is $600-700 a year, and enterprise development isnât cheap. A reasonable sized MongoDB Atlas database cluster is, according to the website, somewhere in the area of $2500-3000 a month. The average job I do saves the company I work for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was doing jobs 30 years ago that weâre doing that. Maybe itâs more like millions. /*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 12, 2019, at 01:25, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
So you earn money with pharo? Isnât that a bit risky if you donât have someone to ask if you have a critical problem? That is what you get when you pay into the consortium. Is it that you demand that from the mailing list and the people that work in their free time?
Norbert
Am 12.04.2019 um 03:06 schrieb john pfersich <jpfersich@gmail.com>:
+1 on the long term support idea. Changing an application every year to support a new version of Pharo is a nonstarter for most of my clients.
/*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 11, 2019, at 06:33, "jtuchel@objektfabrik.de" <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
In the pharo board we have discussed several times the LTS thingy. As others said, problem with this is it costs time, and time is money (that we do not have for the moment). It is certainly something in our horizon, but for now is just not possible. I donât know which kind of applications are in play here, but I find hard to believe the effort of migrating from Pharo 6 to Pharo 7 (to put an example) is so big since I migrated all my projects in no-time. Of course migrating from Pharo 2 to Pharo 7 will take more effort than just catch up the last version. But to improve migration recently we introduce auto rewrite tools. This works fine up to a point. Stability in other terms⦠what does it means? Stability in the API? Stability in the execution? While the 2nd is a must, the 1st is complicated because you have to have a compromise with the need of evolution. Nevertheless, I would say that the core of Pharo is very stable and what is not so much is the tooling. This is because we are still looking for the right tooling (and because needs change, 10 years ago IoT was not a thing nor we should be prepared to it, and now is âthe new kid in the blockâ and we need to answer to it. Lot of other things accumulate what this days is called âtechnical debtâ and we need to answer to that. That breaks âstabilityâ, but breaks it in a positive way. So⦠I have my doubts about what stability means. If it means no change. It is a no go (but users can always stick with older versions, is not that we are hiding them). If it means eternal backward compatibility. It is too expensive (and also an eventual stagnation) So we choose to be âstable in our goalsâ : to provide each version an improved version of Pharo that users can enjoy (that the origin of this thread that has been suddenly highjacked for just one of the topics), while trying to be as effortless as possible to catch up (but of course, âas effortless as possibleâ does not means zero effort). Esteban
On 12 Apr 2019, at 03:06, john pfersich <jpfersich@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on the long term support idea. Changing an application every year to support a new version of Pharo is a nonstarter for most of my clients.
/*âââââââââââââââââ-*/ Sent from my iPhone https://boincstats.com/signature/-1/user/51616339056/sig.png See https://objectnets.net and https://objectnets.org
On Apr 11, 2019, at 06:33, "jtuchel@objektfabrik.de" <jtuchel@objektfabrik.de> wrote:
+1 on the long term support and stability topic.
Am 11.04.2019 um 15:29 schrieb Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com>:
Hi Esteban,
We talk this privately a couple of weeks ago, but I thought it was worth writing again here. As for other IDE's being enjoyable, I can only talk about VASmalltalk. If there is ONE thing I enjoy from it, is the stability. May be ugly, may be too-windows, may be full of menus you don't understand what they do, but it's really rock solid. Pharo has been doing a LOT of progress on so many areas and its expected to decrease a bit on stability. Unless you are Oracle and can hire 100 engineers. So, my small recommendation to you back then was to make at least ONE release (called LTS or whatever) were you just focus on stability and bugs. No new features. No new framework. Just stability. Make it rock solid. Then after that release, you can keep moving forward, but that would give companies and really really stable Pharo to rely on.
For the provision of an LTS version we need more engineers. If there are enough companies that need a rock solid stable version then the consortium will have enough money to hire engineers for that. I would put a virtual machine that we can control much higher on the list of things we should have. Norbert
Best,
-- Mariano Martinez Peck Email: marianopeck@gmail.com Twitter: @MartinezPeck LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariano-mart%C3%ADnez-peck/
participants (8)
-
ducasse -
Esteban Lorenzano -
john pfersich -
jtuchel＠objektfabrik.de -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Norbert Hartl -
Otto Behrens -
phil＠highoctane.be