[ANN] Pharo MIT license clean

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)

Göran Krampe
Hi!

Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:

> Em 28-06-2009 07:23, Göran Krampe escreveu:
>> (...)
>> Possibly true, but Smalltalk, Squeak, Etoys and even Croquet have been
>> around for quite some time now - and we haven't seen any real
>> explosion yet. Croquet was meant to "explode" but hasn't. So I am not
>> holding my breath for "the day Squeak gets popular" :)
>>
> I guess there are several issues when "explosion" (in the sense of wide
> acceptance & popularity) is a target for a project. I'll enumerate some
> of them that came to my mind:

Note that *I* don't really care for any "explosion". I was merely saying
that waiting for it to happen in order to gain something from it - is
probably foolish :)

[SNIP of 1-5]

Note: I don't agree with that list, but I get your point.

> IMHO Squeak.org "stillness" is happening because a point was reached
> when boring work is necessary. IMHO the board should be looking for

Nah, how come Pharo is doing all those things then?? I don't agree.

> corporate support in order to have resources to support the "boring
> work". As an example: some years ago there was momentum for the use of

I generally do not agree with those that think "corporate support" or
"paid work" is the solution. Sorry, I just don't.

I just want a Squeak that I can use and help improve and that has a
reasonable commit process, some nice goals and a reasonable leadership. :)

I don't want a company deciding what happens with Squeak. Definitely not.

> Again, a key issue is that perhaps there is just not enough people to
> support splitting projects. Again, IMHO that is one the issues that
> complicated the life of croquet. Not to mention that much of croquet
> related to 3D optimization and acceleration in cross platform
> environment...

That I can agree with - we are quite few.

>> Oh, and a final note:
>>
>> But what if Squeak.org is abandoned and everyone moves to Pharo, what
>> is so bad about letting that happen? It is NOT bad. But I think we
>> could do it in a smoother way and actually turn this into something
>> *positive*. The merge could be turned into a real BOOST to Squeak/Pharo.
> If everybody goes to Pharo it won't necessarily be a problem. The
> problem will be if key people stand in one side or the other.

Right... So I didn't disagree with *everything* you wrote :)

regards, Göran


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K

On Jun 28, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote:

> A partial reply on the topic of education: in the spirit of Alan's  
> "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet" talk, it will likely  
> be a while (perhaps decades) before before people start to figure  
> out how to make real progress in education through computers.
>
> However and whenever it happens, I will go out on the following  
> limb: it will be adults who enable it.  There is nothing wrong with  
> Pharo's focus on "grown-up software,"

We do not focus per se on grown-up software.
We focus on robust, agile, flexible... software on top of which people  
can build what they want.
Here is a nice example:
        in the past there was a Sq00 syntax: an alternate syntax for newbie.
        This was a cool idea. Now it was implemented by patching the AST  
printOn: methods with mode = #SQ00 ifTrue:
        ... then I wonder how they could try alternate design :). They  
probably found the right syntax directly.
        Another solution is a visitor with which you can also try 3 design  
without polluting the default AST printOn: method.

> and that should actually be encouraged.  Toys can easily be built on  
> top of such a subtrate, but a toy is unlikely to be a good  
> foundation for tools.  Since we have uses for tools and toys, the  
> sound approach is to start with the tools and build the toys on top  
> of the same foundation that Pinesoft and others use to serve paying  
> customers.

Yeap. even if Etoys is far from a tool indee having a good  
infrastructure to prototype new ideas is really needed.
When I designed BotsInc I wanted to capture the error message so I  
thought: no problem I capture
the SyntaxError message .... well .... no SyntaxError inherited from  
String. So I had to patch like hell the system.

>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]
> ] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe
> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 5:24 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak &  
> Pharo (was Re: [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)
>
> Hi!
>
> (still cross posting, hope you don't mind)
>
> Gary Dunn wrote:
>> I am new here and not really qualified to comment on this issue.
>> Please take my input as having good intentions. Specifically, I do  
>> not
>> want to start a flame war over the pros and cons of various projects.
>
> Nah, we don't do flame wars in the Squeak community. Well, not bad  
> ones at least :)
>
>> There is much to learn from the history of the BSD community.
>> (Disclaimer: I am a huge fan of FreeBSD.) The FreeBSD project began
>> with the goal of creating an open-source OS for Intel i386 hardware
>> that was as faithful as possible to BSD Unix. In time the developers
>> were going in three directions. One group wanted high performance, a
>> second wanted portability to every possible platform, and a third
>> wanted high reliability and security. There were also the usual
>> personality conflicts and differing opinions on how to manage the  
>> project.
>> Eventually it forked, twice, giving us FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.
>> Each has its own personality, its own strengths. The good news is  
>> they
>> cross-pollinate each other.
>
> Yeah, that would be a positive future. And I have in fact earlier  
> strongly advocated the fact that we need to "live with forks"  
> because we already have several of them (like Croquet, OLPC etc).
>
> But see below...
>
> [SNIP]
>> It looks to me like Pharo is a Smalltalk for building grown-up apps.
>> Very much like the Smalltalk I began with, which produced apps with
>> the look and feel of the host Microsoft Windows. I think there is a
>> need for that. I take it Pharo is new, and as such it has been luring
>> developers away from Squeak. The potential for good in this outweighs
>> whatever the negative consequences may be, because, like the BSDs,  
>> the
>> Squeak developers can always pull in what they like from Pharo.
>
> In a "perfect world", yes. I even started the DeltaStreams project  
> with these cross pollination scenarios in my head.
>
>> Do not confuse a fork with a divorce. Think of it as mitosis. The  
>> more
>> the merrier.
>
> Yes, that is also the way I have argued about it. See:
>
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-August/119471.html
>
>> I believe that the impact of Squeak on education has yet to be  
>> realized.
>> The necessary hardware -- the visionary Dynabook -- is just  
>> appearing.
>> It will be years before there are enough skilled teachers for the
>> critical mass required for the paradigm shift to occur. And there is
>> the culture change, so difficult in a field as institutionalized as
>> modern education. What we have been seeing are the Smalltalk  
>> explorers
>> and trail blazers, the pioneers to whom we will someday owe an
>> enormous debt of gratitude.
>
> Possibly true, but Smalltalk, Squeak, Etoys and even Croquet have  
> been around for quite some time now - and we haven't seen any real  
> explosion yet. Croquet was meant to "explode" but hasn't. So I am  
> not holding my breath for "the day Squeak gets popular" :)
>
>> I am in no position to recommend anything here, but I will just the
>> same. Please forgive me. I recommend that Squeak not be killed off,  
>> or
>> merged. Let the fork live on.
>
> Nothing to forgive, I want to hear lots of opinions in order for me  
> to personally form an opinion about the idea. The "view" you present  
> above is a positive one of a forked world. The reality can be harsher:
>
> Take XFree86 vs XOrg for example. The history there is complicated  
> but the fact remains - XOrg started, added lots of "cool features"  
> quickly while XFree86 stood still, then when the developers started  
> heavily voting with their feet the distros also switched and XFree86  
> was dead before it even hit the floor.
>
> There are mainly two aspects here that tells me that the above "bad  
> future of XFree86" is more likely to happen than the "good future of
> Open/Net/FreeBSD":
>
> - Pharo may "sound" like it has a different agenda than Squeak.org  
> but IMO the large majority of Squeak.org developers share the Pharo  
> agenda.
> Thus the differentiation is not there. Most people will just pick  
> the one with the most momentum, and that is Pharo.
>
> - Squeak.org is standing still. Sure, there are things being done by  
> some people, no doubt about that. But perception is *everything* and  
> from the outside it seems to be standing still. Even the squeak-dev  
> list is quieting down and that is a bad sign.
>
>
> So although I share your basic view of cross pollinating forks being  
> a "Good Thing" and something we should embrace (see OLPC,  
> Squeakland, Croquet etc etc) such forks need to have a specific goal.
>
> IMHO Pharo is not such a fork, Pharo is still very much "generic" as  
> is Squeak.org. Pharo is more like "Squeak.org going agile" or  
> "Smalltalk, with less talk" :). And thus it resembles XOrg much,  
> much more than OpenBSD.
>
>> I cannot close without saying that "Phreak" would be a very bad name
>> :-)
>
> Again, I wasn't even advocating a name change - although a name  
> change may be a good thing if we would merge. Also, I hate to say  
> it, but "Pharo" sucks pretty bad too I think, and you guys STILL  
> have attracted lots of developers :) :)
>
> Oh, and a final note:
>
> But what if Squeak.org is abandoned and everyone moves to Pharo,  
> what is so bad about letting that happen? It is NOT bad. But I think  
> we could do it in a smoother way and actually turn this into  
> something *positive*.
> The merge could be turned into a real BOOST to Squeak/Pharo.
>
> regards, Göran
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of Squeak & Pharo

Janko Mivšek
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Ian Trudel pravi:

> Göran Krampe:

>> Not sure what you mean there.
>
> Squeak is hardly approachable to newcomers (either seasoned
> programmers or simple new ones). Gaining popularity explicitly means
> to have newcomers. It's not possible if they can't understand what's
> going on.
>
>> Personally I like the colors. I also don't equal "normal" with
>> "professional". But such is taste!
>
> We could certainly debate on tastes but it's perfectly fine that you
> like the current colour scheme. However, you're not alone using Squeak
> and we have to consider other tastes.

> I just mean something approachable (normal look-and-feel), where
> people will feel comfortable from the day they start using Squeak
> through every other following days.

> A professional look-and-feel is probably more about simplicity and
> usability. It doesn't need to have colours by truck load. Something
> that one can spend countless hours looking at without eyes popping out
> of their sockets. And it's about everything... for example, Squeak has
> these childish window buttons and so on... it's NOT that cool, far
> from being trendy. Why would we get stubborn to keep such things? It
> looks like a toy, Squeak sometimes feels like a toy. When I squeeze
> Squeak, it squeaks. Just saying... =)

I completely agree with Ian here. If Squeak wants to be considered for
serious development, but also to attract developers from other
communities and newcomers, it must have the look&feel which is close to
theirs. This not mean that it must be the same, no, just that it follows
the established look&feel standards elsewhere.

Current Squeak is far away from that, while Pharo is marching well into
a more standard look&feel direction. This is actually one of main
reasons I'm attracted to Pharo. Also because they listen to such proposals!

But this don't mean that EToys can stay more colorful, no, let it be on
top of that more "traditionally professional" base. Why to mix two so
different audiences into one image?

Janko

> And, unless some of us are graphic designers, why not just focus on
> something simple, usable and approachable? That's definitively not out
> of reach.
>
>> Note that talking about what we "need" and what other people "want" is not
>> really that fruitful. We get what we *do*, or in other words - if someone
>> feels it is important enough to spend time on it - it will get done. Noone
>> works on something because *someone else* told him to.
>
> It seems to me that we are crying for direction as a community. Squeak
> seems to be lost. Consequently, need, want, do, etc... it's just not
> happening. Don't get me wrong, but it's just that you make it sounds
> like everything can be done without a plan. And some of the things we
> could want requires a lot of work hours and man power. It's not going
> to happen overnight.
>
>>> requirements of my distributors, which makes it overly challenging for
>>> me to consider Squeak as our platform of development.
>> Elaborate?
>
> Please, Igor and I have talked a little bit about this. He will
> certainly bring that on board's table. Anyway, Göran, I hope to be
> able to share a complete list at later time. I am not done reviewing
> the requirements. It's also challenging to know the status of projects
> in Squeak and what has to be done.
>
>
>>> Squeak doesn't need a killer app. It needs to be spruced up and put
>>> back on track. Honey moon is over, it's time to get real.
>> Hehe, I really don't agree. :)
>>
>> Squeak *is* real. We already have our killer app (Seaside). We do need to
>> clean shit up though (and I am not talking about UI primarily) and get the
>> improvement process working. Currently Squeak.org is getting smashed (again,
>> I don't have hard numbers, but I think I am right) by Pharo when it comes to
>> hard, concrete, nitty gritt work getting done.
>
> Squeak has a killer app named Seaside.
> Ruby has a killer app named Ruby On Rails.
> Both are web frameworks, which kills which?
>
> It doesn't really matter. It's not even about merits. Ruby is still
> more approachable language and better documented. And I find it almost
> amusing to have a killer app for the web, when one of the strength of
> Squeak is multimedia. No, no, I am not trying to flame war here...
> just trying to expose few things in order that we can openly discuss
> about them.
>
> Whether you agree or not, Squeak doesn't seem to gain in popularity
> and people are flocking out to other forks. That means Squeak is doing
> something wrong. Wrong enough to overcome all the "done right". =)
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>

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

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The future of Squeak & Pharo

Janko Mivšek
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Bert Freudenberg pravi:

> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>> At this point, I'd be leaning back towards squeak central
>> reintegrating Pharo,
>> given that Etoys already forked.

> Even disregarding what the Pharo people would think about the idea,
> doesn't that argument go both ways? As in "given that Pharo already
> forked, Etoys can now be reintegrated to Squeak"?

Hardly. Pharo deals with lower levels than EToys, EToys works in top of
that core, being Pharo or Squeak.

That's why I see Randal's suggestion reasonable and a nice refinement of
Göran's original "merge" idea. Then one should just adjust EToys on top,
or I'm too naive and don't see some technical problem here?

Best regards
Janko

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

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

open solaris x86

Carlos Crosetti-4
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Hi, is there a vm build for open solaris x86?

Regards, Carlos

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: open solaris x86

Damien Cassou
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Carlos Crosetti<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi, is there a vm build for open solaris x86?

I don't think so. If you build one, please tell me and I will add it
to the website.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
12