A radical proposal (to cut down dead code)

Hi,

There is *a lot* of dead code in the image.

I guess around 1/3 of the code base in Core is just not used at all (especially Morphic).

One thing I would like to do is to put, at the beginning of a development cycle,
a call

        self doesAnyOneUseThisTaggedIn: 'pharo 1.3'.

at the beginning of *all* unsent methods. And keep it even in the released image.

This way we can, within 2-3 interations, remove *a lot* of dead code.

Methods where people tell us that they need them, we should tag
with <api> or <public> or something like that.


        Marcus

--
Marcus Denker  -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

+10000

Le 28/05/2011 15:35, Marcus Denker a écrit :

OK for me.

I do not know.
May be yes.

Stef

On May 28, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:

Hi Marcus:


On 28 May 2011, at 15:35, Marcus Denker wrote:

> There is *a lot* of dead code in the image.
>
> This way we can, within 2-3 interations, remove *a lot* of dead code.
Which tools do you imagine to allow your users to keep up with the pace of the changes of system?

Best regards
Stefan





--
Stefan Marr
Software Languages Lab
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
Phone: +32 2 629 2974
Fax:   +32 2 629 3525

Hi Marcus,

On May 28, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Stefan Marr wrote:
The question is how we can have a future with the current system. Have a look at Morphic. This is one
huge pile of Crap...

The idea of doing Pharo was never to support Squeak's code base (whch is impossible).

        Marcus

--
Marcus Denker  -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

Hi Marcus:


On 28 May 2011, at 16:24, Marcus Denker wrote:
I know your goals, but the question still holds: How do you envision that a user of your system can port her codebase over to the next Pharo version, without going through manual costly painful hours of figuring out what changed and why it changed.

I know you want a better system, that's cool.

But I just want a tool that works. If it gets cooler with every iteration, nice. If there is a tool which allows me to do the transition from one version to another semi-automated, even better.

Otherwise, I will probably stick with an old version until the pain of staying with the old system is bigger than the migration pain.

I am sure you heard all that before. Thus, my question: Can you envision a tool that allows me to keep up with you guys?

Thanks
Stefan



>
> Marcus
>
> --
> Marcus Denker  -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
> INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
>
>

--
Stefan Marr
Software Languages Lab
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
Phone: +32 2 629 2974
Fax:   +32 2 629 3525

>> The idea of doing Pharo was never to support Squeak's code base (whch is impossible).
> I know your goals, but the question still holds: How do you envision that a user of your system can port her codebase over to the next Pharo version, without going through manual costly painful hours of figuring out what changed and why it changed.
>
> I know you want a better system, that's cool.
>
> But I just want a tool that works. If it gets cooler with every iteration, nice. If there is a tool which allows me to do the transition from one version to another semi-automated, even better.
>
> Otherwise, I will probably stick with an old version until the pain of staying with the old system is bigger than the migration pain.


The PhD of veronica is just about that.
This is why Ring is designed, once Ring is integrated we will be able to build new generation tools
and probably use Torch. Right now pseudo class and friends are not a solution

> I am sure you heard all that before. Thus, my question: Can you envision a tool that allows me to keep up with you guys?

Torch + UnitTests
and we will not change everything all the time.

Stef

Marcus,

I like the idea. Who should identify the dead code? What role will you have? Should we send you the list of methods we need? Or do you want to take the ten most downloaded project, run their tests and identify what is used, remove dead code and ask us to try?
 If you have a bit of time, then just do it. Just tell us how we can help you. I have no problem to regularly send reports. I did it for romain and David already.

My advice: whatever the complains people can do right now about breaking old code, this is a kind of action that can radically change the face of Pharo, for a better future.

Cheers,
Alexandre



Le 28 mai 2011 à 09:35, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On 28/05/11 10:16 AM, Stefan Marr wrote:
> Hi Marcus:
>
>
> On 28 May 2011, at 15:35, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
>> There is *a lot* of dead code in the image.
>>
>> This way we can, within 2-3 interations, remove *a lot* of dead code.
> Which tools do you imagine to allow your users to keep up with the pace of the changes of system?

I use two automated builds. One stream builds on fixed versions of
PharoCore + other stuff. I use this for day-to-day development.

The other stream builds my stuff on the latest PharoCore. I manually
update to the latest, so there is some lag, but I still find out fairly
soon, when a change has affected my stuff.

If something is broken, then I would try to make my stuff work in both
streams. If that looks like a bad approach, then I could lobby for a
change/undo of whatever broke my stuff - while active development of
that Pharo version is still ongoing.

That's the theory. My build has been broken for 10 days now. That's a
matter of hours available and priorities, but I think the process is sound.

On 28. 05. 2011 15:35, Marcus Denker wrote:

To automatically track any usage of such methods, add also:

 - email a stack of any such method call to cleanup watcher
 - tag such method and count its usage out of those emails
 - after a year or so purge all untagged methods

This way image can actually be cleaned up without much angry guys out
there, also without a lot of work if cleanup is automated.

Best regards
Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Hi,

In Moose we do the same.

Moose builds on the latest stable Pharo, and we use this for daily development. We also use a manual update of the latest Pharo to control the deltas and understand their consequences.

We migrated from Pharo 1.2 to Pharo 1.3 in about an estimated of 10h of work including testing / deploying. This was mostly due to the radical but fantastic changes in Announcements :). From 1.1 to 1.2 it was even less.

So, although lots of things change behind the Pharo hood, the overall compatibility is quite high. And Moose stresses the system. So, I would not overestimate the effort of migrating.

Cheers,
Doru


On 28 May 2011, at 17:06, Yanni Chiu wrote:

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Value is always contextual."

CONTENTS DELETED

Hello.
I do not know about Torch, Moose, and related tools, and I even as a novice in the art of smalltalk, I will tell an idea. If it seems very silly then simply discarded:)

I also believe that sending information on that part of the system we use is vital for you to make any decisions with less risk of breakage of the tools that we ourselves use.

This allows you to create statistics to revalidate the code identified as unused, or else find that use is being given. I also think they should not be sent anonymously, so as to inquire the user that sent about what use is giving the system and determine if it is a compelling reason to consider. But it should be simple and automatic for a user to send this information, much as do common applications, and should be enabled if you want it or not. But, if a user does not report about his use of the system, then can not claim to be supportive.

Am 28.05.2011 um 15:35 schrieb Marcus Denker:
I like the idea although I think it is dangerous. I think we could provide a layer of backward compatibility. It is dead code so these are things that are there but unused. So removing them does not force any other change. A removal could be done this way:

- create a monticello package "removal20110529"
- Let a tool that identified a bunch of methods change the method category to "*removal20110529"
- store the monticello package
- unload it which will remove the methods.

This way the removals would chronologically stacked in monticello packages. A developer can now go back in time if he has problems until the point the code works again. Furthermore this would be a documentation when we removed which code.

Norbert

Dead code in the development image is not a serious problem. They may be used by specific applications.

What is desirable is to remove dead code from application images that are ready for distribution. VisualWorks has RuntimePackager to strip the application image before distribution. Pharo should have something like that.

The alternative is to build an application by importing needed code into a bare bone image. Is Spoon trying to do this?

All the best,
Aik-Siong Koh

On May 29, 2011, at 9:09 PM, askoh wrote:

> Dead code in the development image is not a serious problem.

It is: it makes *understanding* nearly impossible. And it makes cleaning up impossible.

It's not just un-used, it's *very* badly structured, in addition.

There is unused code, but than there is  used code that needs to be cleaned
up to be faster and more compact. All the dead code makes this nearly impossible
to do, as the dead code uses the system, sometimes in ways that are very strange.

        Marcus


--
Marcus Denker  -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.

On May 29, 2011, at 9:09 PM, askoh wrote:

this is what we will do in the future. But there is no magic building good package is the way to
go.


> Is Spoon trying to do this?
>
> All the best,
> Aik-Siong Koh
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/A-radical-proposal-to-cut-down-dead-code-tp3557448p3559376.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

2011/5/29 askoh <[hidden email]>:
> Is Spoon trying to do this?

AFAIK, yes.

As far as I understand, Craig is using a modified VM to identify sent
messages and to automagically mirror them from a master to a slave
image; making testcases very crucial in the process. To make a
tailored image, you run all the testcases and the "needed" behavior
automagically gets pushed/ pulled into the slave image. Save the
slave, and you can run it indepentently.

"Spoon" way - mark each sent message (within the vm) - execute a full
test cycle - see what has been marked-
"Tinkering way" - modify all CompiledMethods to send a "self
registerAsSent: self selector object: self" by code and run a full
test

Two ways I could think off right now, not really deep into it.