[Pharo-dev] external#senders (was Re: DebugSession>>activePC:)

Sven Van Caekenberghe sven at stfx.eu
Fri Jan 11 14:40:18 EST 2019



> On 11 Jan 2019, at 19:32, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sven,
> 
> On Jan 11, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven at stfx.eu> wrote:
> 
>> Eliot, 
>> 
>> I can assure you that multiple core Pharo people had the same reaction, don't turn this (again) in a play on one person's emotions (apart from the fact that those are present in all living creatures).
> 
> First you assume a motive I don’t have.  I am not trying to provoke anyone.  

Clearly you are, given the reactions. 

Like Doru said, you did not just answer the question, your last two paragraphs contained lots of provocation.

> Second, I think emotions are the results of mammalian brains, perhaps bird and fish brains, and certainly not present in amoeba.

First an IS reference, now this: yes, you are a man ratio and reason only, devout of human emotions like the rest of us. Good for you.

Hundreds of libraries and frameworks were moved between Pharo 6.x and 7, with minimal changes.

We are an active, living community where many, many people contribute, are allowed to make mistakes, to question old code and old rules, to learn, to make things better.

>> Sven
>> 
>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 18:57, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Stef,
>>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2019, at 11:24 PM, ducasse <stepharo at netcourrier.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ben
>>>> 
>>>> Since you asked I reply. 
>>>> For calypso we try and sometimes fail and retry. But we do not rant. 
>>>> 
>>>> Now the solution is also to have tests and this is what we are doing. 
>>>> We want more tests and we are working on having more tests.
>>>> 
>>>> The solution is also to have ***********positive********* communication. 
>>>> 
>>>> There is no point to piss on our process because
>>>>    - we were the first to push package usage back in squeal 3.9
>>>>    - increase enormously the number of tests
>>>>    - have CI to run the tests and use PR. 
>>>>    and it is working!
>>>> 
>>>> So before bashing us I would expect a bit of respect that it is due to our track record. 
>>> 
>>> Again you fail to respond to an attempt to discuss real issues and instead take it as a personal map attack and respond emotionally.  Ben is /not/ bashing your process in an attempt to damage Pharo.  As an academic researcher you should be able to respond objectively to criticism.  This frequent emotionality doesn’t help you or the community.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Finally it takes 1 min to enter a bug entry and now you cannot even complain that you have to log 
>>>> because it is on github. (BTW nobdoy is asking the amount of time it takes US to migrate and go over the bug entry -
>>>> again I ask for respect for the people doing this tedious, boring but important job). 
>>>> 
>>>> When VMMaker will be available in Pharo we will be able to automate things not before. 
>>>> Please remember also that Igor paid by us spent a lot of time making sure that 
>>>> everybody and in particular our jenkins server could automatically build vm.
>>>> 
>>>> So we believe in agility, communication and automation. 
>>>> 
>>>> Stef
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 05:54, Ben Coman <btc at openinworld.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 23:51, ducasse via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev at lists.pharo.org> wrote:
>>>>> Thomas can you integrate such comments in the debugger class comment
>>>>> 
>>>>> @Eliot thanks for the explanation. 
>>>>> About the method removed, could you please react less negatively? It would be nice. 
>>>>> I cannot believe that you the guy that know the VM would get stopped to open a bug entry telling us that isOptimizedBlock
>>>>> has been removed and it should not. How much time opening a bug entry can take? Under 1 min I guess. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'd guess it takes more than 1 minute overall - a few minutes to shift context to open an old Pharo image 
>>>>> and a few more open the original method to copy it to Pharo and repeat that for the next ten missing methods,
>>>>> and then having fixed it for yourself, rather than just log a job for someone else, having fixed your own 
>>>>> you now repair your pharo repo with Iceberg and submit a commit, and your now off-task by half an hour.  
>>>>> Not a great deal of time if that was what you schedule to work on, you but frustrating when dragged off task.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The thing is, when is someone is frustrated, without sharing there is no chance to resolve anything, 
>>>>> so the frustration doubles and builds up, and unconsciously creeps in relationships and/or leads to a breakdown. 
>>>>> Putting it out in the world relieves that pressure and provides the possibility that someone might 
>>>>> find a middle path.  As always, it is not what is said but how it is said, 
>>>>> and personally that seemed okay to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Just because a method is not in the image does not imply it is not in use.  It simply means that it is not in use in the base image.  As the system gets modularised this issue will only increase.   
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the flip side, if the rule was "don't touch unused methods", that would block a lot of action
>>>>> around cleaning, minimisation and modulation that are important.  Even though those things 
>>>>> aren't directly the shiney new tools that make Pharo great, its their philosophy that underpins
>>>>> a lot of the visible Pharo improvements which has facilitated Pharo's growth.  
>>>>> That "vision" is why I'm here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The pivot point here the concept of "unused" and perhaps where we can do better.
>>>>> Currently developers have no information available to base their decision on.
>>>>> Requiring developers to query the mail list about every cleaning, minimisation and modulation action 
>>>>> would have a freezing effect.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> For stuff that is image its much easier for developers since:
>>>>> * its "visible" right in front of them
>>>>> * they can make decisions and take action around it
>>>>> * tests can be run
>>>>> 
>>>>> So the question is how we can get those things for important modules outside the image?
>>>>> For me, VM is not like any third party app but is very much a *part* of Pharo
>>>>> since its something which helps Pharo itself advance.  So lets treat it as such, similar 
>>>>> to how we treat other modules like Calypso or Iceberg which happen distributed in-Image.
>>>>> Can we consider the last step of the CI (after packing the CI product)
>>>>> could load a static version of VMMaker?  Not that any issues would fail the commit, but just report 
>>>>> to bring "visibility" to the table ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or, once VMMaker is in git, perhaps a separate opensmalltalk-vm CI job 
>>>>> could run against each latest Pharo image to report problems?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or to broaden the perspective of "unused" further, we could put broader #senders-info in front 
>>>>> of developers so then can make informed decisions at design time rather cleaning up after-the-fact? 
>>>>> Projects could register on a central site their list of #senders (generated from some tool)
>>>>> so the Pharo IDE could reference that when asked for #senders - so the information is available 
>>>>> to make informed decisions.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Clicking on an external#sender could pop up the actual code hosted on github,
>>>>> so developers have even better knowledge for decisions and communication. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course, creating such a system requires effort in our world of limited resources.
>>>>> But the external#senders register could be a premium service available just
>>>>> to Pharo Association/Consortium members which sets up a bit of a win/win scenario.  
>>>>> It helps developers and is an incentive to join up.  This is not to guarantee changes won't 
>>>>> affect your project's #senders, but just to improve communication around them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So why if marcus removed it inadvertently would you want to make him feel bad? I don’t want people to feel bad.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We can do mistake.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That is an important philosophy, but here is a key thing to be clear on... 
>>>>>   [ "If you are not open to hearing about mistakes, then you are not open to making mistakes." ] repeat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is no reason for an individual to feel bad about removing an "unused" method if that is the process.
>>>>> But can the process be improved?
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers -ben
>> 
>> 




More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list