[Pharo-project] Misc. newbie questions

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Sun Jan 8 07:26:27 EST 2012


On Jan 8, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Gerry Weaver wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> Thank you for all of your responses. They are really helping me get a better picture of Pharo, the environment, and the community.
> 
> 
> I really like the idea of a REPL type interface. If I understand correctly, all of the functionality that deals with class/method definition is already there. It seems like it would be a matter of writing a little server type application that would communicate via stdin/stdout. I assume one could then send messages to the code that evaluates methods/function definitions and provide result feedback via stout.

Yes :)
With the MTvm you can already do that: talk to the vm via a console :). 

> Maybe it could also understand some commands like doit and accept.
Yes.
A doit is somehow no more than Compiler evaluate: asString 

> It could be interesting to have a TCP based interface as well. How difficult would it be to do something like this?
> I may start looking into this. It seems like a good project to jump into the deep end, start paddling, and drinking a little water (hopefully not too much). Is the code that handles this kind of thing readily accessible? I've started looking around a bit.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Gerry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: "Frank Shearar" <frank.shearar at gmail.com> 
>> To: Pharo-project at lists.gforge.inria.fr 
>> Date: 01/07/12 09:28 
>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Misc. newbie questions 
>> 
>> On 7 January 2012 15:11, Nicolas Cellier
>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2012/1/7 Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>:
>>>> On 7 January 2012 14:14, Nicolas Cellier
>>>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2012/1/6 Lukas Renggli <renggli at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> On 6 January 2012 11:20, Peter Hugosson-Miller <oldmanlink at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6 jan 2012, at 06:41, "Gerry Weaver" <gerryw at compvia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2. There appear to be some tool choices in the Pharo image. I would like to
>>>>>>> be able to create a class and it's methods in an editor in one go. I like
>>>>>>> being able to see all of the class code at once. Is there a way to do this?
>>>>>>>  I just want to be able to type it all in and accept (evaluate?) all at
>>>>>>> once.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is an interesting question to me personally. After 15 years of working
>>>>>>> exclusively in Smalltalk I've recently been forced to start programming in
>>>>>>> Java, where the source code is always (as far as I know) arranged in the way
>>>>>>> you describe.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This organization just emphasizes the dead and compiled nature of Java (and
>>>>>>> similar languages), compared to the living objects of Smalltalk, where even
>>>>>>> methods are objects, created by sending messages to other objects. Source
>>>>>>> code is relegated to being a mere artifact, which can be saved and organized
>>>>>>> in any way one wishes, and preferably never shows its ugly face to the coder
>>>>>>> :-p
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Which of course is no argument why Smalltalk code could not be
>>>>>> displayed in a more programmer friendly way as a continuous block of
>>>>>> text. There is no technical reason why source ranges in text box
>>>>>> couldn't correspond to life method objects. Compared to other
>>>>>> languages it is extremely tedious in Smalltalk to get an overview over
>>>>>> a project, a package, or even a single class or to navigate between
>>>>>> entities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And yes, I really *really* miss a good, object oriented class browser!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Eclipse is pretty good, especially with the Java Browsing Perspective.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As soon as you would display the code for many methods in a single text pane,
>>>>> you will find file-based-educated people making large refactorings in
>>>>> a single pass...
>>>>> Imagine this leads to many syntax errors, they will soon be willing to
>>>>> save their changes for a later rework...
>>>>> This would be a complete change in programming flow and if we really
>>>>> want to support this, we would have to:
>>>>> - add a way to save syntactically incorrect code
>>>>> - let IDE tools work on partially correct code (syntax highlighting,
>>>>> navigation, etc...)
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO, these features add a lot of complexity... Is it really worth?
>>>>> I like the discipline of focusing on a single method until it is at
>>>>> least syntactically correct.
>>>> 
>>>> The Pharo community has extremely limited resources so it seems quite
>>>> fair to me for Pharo to say "yes, but it's up to you because we have
>>>> no time". It _is_ very useful to be able to see and edit long reams of
>>>> text: my favourite text editor's been beaten on since the late 70s. It
>>>> is now very, very good at manipulating text, in multiple programming
>>>> languages, in multiple human languages, on many platforms. That I
>>>> can't use this text editor to manipulate a textual representation of
>>>> my favourite language is extremely annoying!
>>>> 
>>>> frank
>>> 
>>> Yeah, but my take was that re-inventing a very narrow subset of these
>>> 40 years old text editors in Smalltalk would likely be a failure...
>>> (or a big project)
>> 
>> It would be a fairlly big piece of work although we do have lots of
>> pieces lying around:
>> * Coral's working on a scripting/REPL-like interface,
>> * the Common Lisp community has been using SLIME to provide a REPL to
>> a running image for years while also using files to store their code,
>> * we have Gitocello (which also translates Squeak/Pharo to gst),
>> * we have LanguageBoxes (*) allowing us to permit craziness like
>> storing code outside the image in one format without affecting the
>> entire language (letting us store Smalltalk code in something other
>> than chunk format)
>> 
>> (*) watch this space: I'm making progress on breaking up the Helvetia
>> image into a bootstrappable bunch of packages
>> 
>>> There is also this recent related post which touch this subject:
>>> 
>>> http://railsrx.com/2011/12/29/getting-back-to-smalltalk/
>> 
>> Amusingly, I only just finished reading that in my newsreader. I think
>> _personally_ that I need to port TWM to Squeak because I'm tired of
>> being the window manager, and hopefully that would solve my other
>> pain, which Noel points out - the ability to see multiple methods at a
>> time is _really useful_.
>> 
>> (Trivial example: think of how clear code in ML or Haskell looks when
>> pattern matching on type, versus having five browsers open on various
>> subclasses' implementations of #foo.)
>> 
>> I guess I'm saying: the rest of the world isn't automatically wrong
>> because they're not using Smalltalk, and I want to bring the best
>> parts of the non-Smalltalk stuff to Smalltalk (like having the
>> _option_ of using my favourite version control system, text editor,
>> IDE, etc.)
>> 
>> frank
>> 
>>> Nicolas
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On the other hand, in Smalltalk we have to transfer the complexity of
>>>>> multi-method changes in the refactoring engines/menus when some simple
>>>>> modify/replace in a file would work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Lukas Renggli
>>>>>> www.lukas-renggli.ch
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list