[Pharo-users] Pharo-users Digest, Vol 77, Issue 67

Vince Refiti vinref at gmail.com
Mon Sep 23 00:48:49 EDT 2019


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 at lists.pharo.org> wrote:

> Send Pharo-users mailing list submissions to
>         pharo-users at 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 at lists.pharo.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         pharo-users-owner at 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 at gmail.com>
> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>
> Subject: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question
> Message-ID:
>         <CABcYAd+DggCnoSaQr+D54Hc5=
> Mb_ToRw8+o+saeEonipyMckzw at 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 at gmail.com>
> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CABcYAd+Xgn45++FKgDogZgEGzQfpPCg7+ZY4t+RaPxYSYLgctQ at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> To: pharo-users at lists.pharo.org
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question
> Message-ID: <1569199269309-0.post at 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 at mutabit.com>
> To: pharo-users at lists.pharo.org
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
> Message-ID: <ded9afcf-a557-9a0f-1aac-e45262b36d1a at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> To: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users at lists.pharo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJzdPQV0YZXWePmfJ_PNbmBZeWq_Ov-St1iG9h8hd4dx=9CN=
> w at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20190922/7e300678/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-users mailing list
> Pharo-users at lists.pharo.org
> http://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Pharo-users Digest, Vol 77, Issue 67
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20190923/61da7d1f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Pharo-users mailing list