Fwd: [squeak-dev] Stuff
Locked
123
123
 
|
I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
2009/12/16 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
> I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points. > Yes, silly, by fact that currently there are two groups of people each putting improvements over different places of merely same thing, duplicating an effort(s). But anyways, its better than sitting and waiting for Great New Thing (c) to be released by someone. I just hope, that at some day both forks will adopt DeltaStreams to make our life a bit easier in respect of sharing the code. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: keith <[hidden email]> > Date: 2009/12/16 > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Stuff > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > <[hidden email]> > > >> So the question is, has ever been considered to simply build the bridge >> between >> communities and to use the PharoCore image as the base for Squeak? > > This wouldn't work for the same reasons that it wouldn't work to use a > Squeak-trunk image as the basis for Pharo. You should propose that at > some point just to see what kind of reaction you get ;-) > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > Yes please propose it. That is an excellent idea. Lets use the PharoCore > image as the base for future Squeak releases! It would work excellently, it > might require some humility from Andreas. In my opinion it is the only > sensible way forward. > Let me divulge a little secret here, the biggest reason that we kept the > original 3.11 development always said to be about "process" and not about > the actual release image, is that with a decent image building and testing > process in place it would then have been possible to build and test a future > squeak release pilot on top of some of the pharo-core packages. For us Pharo > was simply a pilot project moving the core forward that we could borrow the > best bits from it as appropriate. By adopting pharo in carefully integrated > pieces we would perhaps of stood a chance of keeping the community together. > The annoying thing was that Pharo team seemed to be insisting on diverging > far more than was necessary and consistently refused to adopt any shared > values or code that would have made this approach easier, we really need as > a starting point, shared code loading tools, package management tools, and > shared testing tools at the very least. i.e. Installer, and MC1.5/6 were > developed with this in mind, and so was SUnit-improved, but the Pharo team > refused to touch either of these projects. > The more that the squeak-core image changes (i.e. in trunk) without tracking > pharo's core packages the more diverse and impossible future integration > will become. The old 3.11 effort was about having the tools to enable > packages to be developed and tested in both Pharo and Squeak and all other > forks, and then extending this to suggest common core packages as a way > forward for everyone. > So now that our to-be carefully planned evolution of squeak-core, using > pharo for inspiration, has been trashed by random hacking on trunk, adopting > PharoCore as a base image is probably the viable way forward for this > community to remain viable. > You already know that I don't see the squeak community as viable, since it > eats its young. > Sooner or later the board or someone will realize this, they will get > elected to the board, and all those of you who have been working hard on > trunk will discover that all your contributions have been wasted. Never mind > eh. > Keith > > > > > > -- > Cédrick > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
I don't know the entire background and I most definitively don't want to start something here but it looks like politics. The "Pharo Project" team seems to have achieved more in 1 year than Squeak had in a decade - from my point of view :)
I am a bit confused what the idea of Squeak using PharoCore as the base (or core) would be? Is the suggestion to have Squeak become a sub-project of Pharo, building on top of PharoCore in a similar way as Pharo (dev/web) does? I wouldn't think the Squeak team is willing to handover the "core" to Pharo, otherwise there would never have been a Pharo project in the first place .... or am I barking up the wrong tree? Anyhow, better package management and code sharing (simpler) would be great :) |
|
|
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:15 AM, GeertClaes wrote: > > I don't know the entire background and I most definitively don't want to > start something here but it looks like politics. The "Pharo Project" team > seems to have achieved more in 1 year than Squeak had in a decade - from my > point of view :) Yes I agree. I will not reply. > I am a bit confused what the idea of Squeak using PharoCore as the base (or > core) would be? Is the suggestion to have Squeak become a sub-project of > Pharo, building on top of PharoCore in a similar way as Pharo (dev/web) > does? I wouldn't think the Squeak team is willing to handover the "core" to > Pharo, otherwise there would never have been a Pharo project in the first > place .... or am I barking up the wrong tree? Anyhow, better package > management and code sharing (simpler) would be great :) No you are right. I was dreaming of a beautiful world but it does not exist. I will continue to push pharo to be a vehicule for people to make a living and create a market around it. Now it will be less easier. Stef > > > -- > View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Fwd-squeak-dev-Stuff-tp4174205p4174266.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Geert Claes
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, GeertClaes wrote:
> > I don't know the entire background and I most definitively don't want to > start something here but it looks like politics. The "Pharo Project" team > seems to have achieved more in 1 year than Squeak had in a decade - from my > point of view :) You must be kidding. > > I am a bit confused what the idea of Squeak using PharoCore as the base (or > core) would be? Is the suggestion to have Squeak become a sub-project of Ranting about squeak on squeak-dev, that's the idea. Levente > Pharo, building on top of PharoCore in a similar way as Pharo (dev/web) > does? I wouldn't think the Squeak team is willing to handover the "core" to > Pharo, otherwise there would never have been a Pharo project in the first > place .... or am I barking up the wrong tree? Anyhow, better package > management and code sharing (simpler) would be great :) > > > -- > View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Fwd-squeak-dev-Stuff-tp4174205p4174266.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Hi all,
For people out of the discussion, a secret to approach this kind of highly-technical and political dialogs is to perform one or many dialectical shifts to a meta-dialog framework. Sadly, now there is few people in the world with enough knowledge in technology and rethorics to do that in acceptable time (without being payed of course). The better we can do now is not to break implicit debate rules, i.e. not to leave conversations, and not use "ad hominem" attacks which are two very common fallacies. Cheers, Hernán 2009/12/16 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: > I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: keith <[hidden email]> > Date: 2009/12/16 > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Stuff > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > <[hidden email]> > > >> So the question is, has ever been considered to simply build the bridge >> between >> communities and to use the PharoCore image as the base for Squeak? > > This wouldn't work for the same reasons that it wouldn't work to use a > Squeak-trunk image as the basis for Pharo. You should propose that at > some point just to see what kind of reaction you get ;-) > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > Yes please propose it. That is an excellent idea. Lets use the PharoCore > image as the base for future Squeak releases! It would work excellently, it > might require some humility from Andreas. In my opinion it is the only > sensible way forward. > Let me divulge a little secret here, the biggest reason that we kept the > original 3.11 development always said to be about "process" and not about > the actual release image, is that with a decent image building and testing > process in place it would then have been possible to build and test a future > squeak release pilot on top of some of the pharo-core packages. For us Pharo > was simply a pilot project moving the core forward that we could borrow the > best bits from it as appropriate. By adopting pharo in carefully integrated > pieces we would perhaps of stood a chance of keeping the community together. > The annoying thing was that Pharo team seemed to be insisting on diverging > far more than was necessary and consistently refused to adopt any shared > values or code that would have made this approach easier, we really need as > a starting point, shared code loading tools, package management tools, and > shared testing tools at the very least. i.e. Installer, and MC1.5/6 were > developed with this in mind, and so was SUnit-improved, but the Pharo team > refused to touch either of these projects. > The more that the squeak-core image changes (i.e. in trunk) without tracking > pharo's core packages the more diverse and impossible future integration > will become. The old 3.11 effort was about having the tools to enable > packages to be developed and tested in both Pharo and Squeak and all other > forks, and then extending this to suggest common core packages as a way > forward for everyone. > So now that our to-be carefully planned evolution of squeak-core, using > pharo for inspiration, has been trashed by random hacking on trunk, adopting > PharoCore as a base image is probably the viable way forward for this > community to remain viable. > You already know that I don't see the squeak community as viable, since it > eats its young. > Sooner or later the board or someone will realize this, they will get > elected to the board, and all those of you who have been working hard on > trunk will discover that all your contributions have been wasted. Never mind > eh. > Keith > > > > > > -- > Cédrick > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
You are too meta for me :)
What do you suggest in basic terms (yes this is too early for me but my brain is starting to work again). Now just a point. The squeak archives is full of our history. Historians can go there and get the why we are here, what we did and what was the problem at that point. And I believe that they will really deeply understand. We only did one fork, some other did multiple ones but apparently they had the rights to do so. Newcomers can judge but may be they are wrong too :) Guys let us continue build a shiny future this is more fun than ego problems. My goal with pharo is - to create a world where people can make a living with an open-source smalltalk. - make it credible to the outside world (you know python, ruby, lua, java....) - make sure that we can adapt to the future changes - be the substrate of people new inventions - learn and expand my knowledge Stef PS: I should not have forwarded this mail, I was dreaming about a better world but it does not exist so let us continue On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote: > Hi all, > For people out of the discussion, a secret to approach this kind of > highly-technical and political dialogs is to perform one or many > dialectical shifts to a meta-dialog framework. Sadly, now there is few > people in the world with enough knowledge in technology and rethorics > to do that in acceptable time (without being payed of course). > The better we can do now is not to break implicit debate rules, i.e. > not to leave conversations, and not use "ad hominem" attacks which are > two very common fallacies. > Cheers, > > Hernán > > 2009/12/16 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: >> I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points. >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: keith <[hidden email]> >> Date: 2009/12/16 >> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Stuff >> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list >> <[hidden email]> >> >> >>> So the question is, has ever been considered to simply build the bridge >>> between >>> communities and to use the PharoCore image as the base for Squeak? >> >> This wouldn't work for the same reasons that it wouldn't work to use a >> Squeak-trunk image as the basis for Pharo. You should propose that at >> some point just to see what kind of reaction you get ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> - Andreas >> >> Yes please propose it. That is an excellent idea. Lets use the PharoCore >> image as the base for future Squeak releases! It would work excellently, it >> might require some humility from Andreas. In my opinion it is the only >> sensible way forward. >> Let me divulge a little secret here, the biggest reason that we kept the >> original 3.11 development always said to be about "process" and not about >> the actual release image, is that with a decent image building and testing >> process in place it would then have been possible to build and test a future >> squeak release pilot on top of some of the pharo-core packages. For us Pharo >> was simply a pilot project moving the core forward that we could borrow the >> best bits from it as appropriate. By adopting pharo in carefully integrated >> pieces we would perhaps of stood a chance of keeping the community together. >> The annoying thing was that Pharo team seemed to be insisting on diverging >> far more than was necessary and consistently refused to adopt any shared >> values or code that would have made this approach easier, we really need as >> a starting point, shared code loading tools, package management tools, and >> shared testing tools at the very least. i.e. Installer, and MC1.5/6 were >> developed with this in mind, and so was SUnit-improved, but the Pharo team >> refused to touch either of these projects. >> The more that the squeak-core image changes (i.e. in trunk) without tracking >> pharo's core packages the more diverse and impossible future integration >> will become. The old 3.11 effort was about having the tools to enable >> packages to be developed and tested in both Pharo and Squeak and all other >> forks, and then extending this to suggest common core packages as a way >> forward for everyone. >> So now that our to-be carefully planned evolution of squeak-core, using >> pharo for inspiration, has been trashed by random hacking on trunk, adopting >> PharoCore as a base image is probably the viable way forward for this >> community to remain viable. >> You already know that I don't see the squeak community as viable, since it >> eats its young. >> Sooner or later the board or someone will realize this, they will get >> elected to the board, and all those of you who have been working hard on >> trunk will discover that all your contributions have been wasted. Never mind >> eh. >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cédrick >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2009, at 07:15, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > Guys let us continue build a shiny future this is more fun than ego > problems. > My goal with pharo is > - to create a world where people can make a living with an open- > source smalltalk. > - make it credible to the outside world (you know python, ruby, > lua, java....) > - make sure that we can adapt to the future changes > - be the substrate of people new inventions > - learn and expand my knowledge I am very happy that you guys are working on Pharo. I hope to be able to create shiny new inventions on top of that, contribute to the substrate when I can (hopefully not just by nagging at people ;-) ), and I am making publicity in multiple places. (AOSD conf demo of AspectMaps in Pharo coming up! ) > PS: I should not have forwarded this mail, I was dreaming about a > better world but it does not > exist so let us continue Many of us dream these things, that's why we are doing the work that we are doing. It's good to see that I am not alone in that, so yes you should send these kinds of mails. -- Johan Fabry [hidden email] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Thanks johan.
We plan to do a lot of infrastructure work to make sure that we get a powerful system: - cleaning SystemDictionary - better compiler - rewrite of classBuilder beast - new meta object protocol. >> Guys let us continue build a shiny future this is more fun than ego >> problems. >> My goal with pharo is >> - to create a world where people can make a living with an open- >> source smalltalk. >> - make it credible to the outside world (you know python, ruby, >> lua, java....) >> - make sure that we can adapt to the future changes >> - be the substrate of people new inventions >> - learn and expand my knowledge > > I am very happy that you guys are working on Pharo. I hope to be able > to create shiny new inventions on top of that, contribute to the > substrate when I can (hopefully not just by nagging at people ;-) ), > and I am making publicity in multiple places. (AOSD conf demo of > AspectMaps in Pharo coming up! ) > >> PS: I should not have forwarded this mail, I was dreaming about a >> better world but it does not >> exist so let us continue > > > Many of us dream these things, that's why we are doing the work that > we are doing. It's good to see that I am not alone in that, so yes you > should send these kinds of mails. > > -- > Johan Fabry > [hidden email] - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry > PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
2009/12/16 Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/12/16 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: >> I will reply because this situation is silly and keith has some good points. >> > > Yes, silly, by fact that currently there are two groups of people each > putting improvements over > different places of merely same thing, duplicating an effort(s). > But anyways, its better than sitting and waiting for Great New Thing > (c) to be released by someone. > I just hope, that at some day both forks will adopt DeltaStreams to > make our life a bit easier in respect of sharing the code. > Sometimes it's good to see two different solutions. It makes you think twice. Nicolas > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: keith <[hidden email]> >> Date: 2009/12/16 >> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Stuff >> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list >> <[hidden email]> >> >> >>> So the question is, has ever been considered to simply build the bridge >>> between >>> communities and to use the PharoCore image as the base for Squeak? >> >> This wouldn't work for the same reasons that it wouldn't work to use a >> Squeak-trunk image as the basis for Pharo. You should propose that at >> some point just to see what kind of reaction you get ;-) >> >> Cheers, >> - Andreas >> >> Yes please propose it. That is an excellent idea. Lets use the PharoCore >> image as the base for future Squeak releases! It would work excellently, it >> might require some humility from Andreas. In my opinion it is the only >> sensible way forward. >> Let me divulge a little secret here, the biggest reason that we kept the >> original 3.11 development always said to be about "process" and not about >> the actual release image, is that with a decent image building and testing >> process in place it would then have been possible to build and test a future >> squeak release pilot on top of some of the pharo-core packages. For us Pharo >> was simply a pilot project moving the core forward that we could borrow the >> best bits from it as appropriate. By adopting pharo in carefully integrated >> pieces we would perhaps of stood a chance of keeping the community together. >> The annoying thing was that Pharo team seemed to be insisting on diverging >> far more than was necessary and consistently refused to adopt any shared >> values or code that would have made this approach easier, we really need as >> a starting point, shared code loading tools, package management tools, and >> shared testing tools at the very least. i.e. Installer, and MC1.5/6 were >> developed with this in mind, and so was SUnit-improved, but the Pharo team >> refused to touch either of these projects. >> The more that the squeak-core image changes (i.e. in trunk) without tracking >> pharo's core packages the more diverse and impossible future integration >> will become. The old 3.11 effort was about having the tools to enable >> packages to be developed and tested in both Pharo and Squeak and all other >> forks, and then extending this to suggest common core packages as a way >> forward for everyone. >> So now that our to-be carefully planned evolution of squeak-core, using >> pharo for inspiration, has been trashed by random hacking on trunk, adopting >> PharoCore as a base image is probably the viable way forward for this >> community to remain viable. >> You already know that I don't see the squeak community as viable, since it >> eats its young. >> Sooner or later the board or someone will realize this, they will get >> elected to the board, and all those of you who have been working hard on >> trunk will discover that all your contributions have been wasted. Never mind >> eh. >> Keith >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cédrick >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Geert Claes
On 16 Dec 2009, at 08:15, GeertClaes wrote:
People doing actual work can cope with a less than optimal core for a few years. However having package management and testing tools that work is far more useful. We did all that in the squeak community. But due to the squeak board panicing and throwing all of the 4 years of progress away because they didn't understand the extent of it. They too went back to a 3.10 base image and forked, so now it does indeed look like squeak made no progress. My point of view is that squeak has made much more progress on important things than pharo has. When I started using squeak it was unusable because it wasn't possible to load anything due to lack of documentation of dependencies. Now due to politics all of those advances have been binned and so Pharo wins by default. There should not even be a competition. I detest competition, and because everything I have tried to do in collaboration over 4 years has ended up in a competition, this has led me to simply leave the community. In 4 years I have only ever had 2 people offer to work with me on something.
The Pharo team never asked for the opportunity to develop the new version of squeak if they had submitted a proposal at the time, I am sure it would have been considered. However they didn't want to be involved in the politics, and I cant say I blame them.
Keith _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
Keith,
How
can you state that the Pharo team did not ask to build a new version of
Squeak? Stef was in charge of a release and was left throwing his hands up
in frustration at the obstruction and inaction of the Squeak
community. Fortunately, he channeled that frustration in a positive
way.
Ideas
such as we see taking shape in Pharo were openly ridiculed on the Squeak
mailing lists - look there for any progress differential that you cannot
explain.
Bill
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of keith Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:11 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: [squeak-dev] Stuff On 16 Dec 2009, at 08:15, GeertClaes wrote:
People doing actual work can cope with a less than optimal core for a few
years. However having package management and testing tools that work is far more
useful. We did all that in the squeak community. But due to the squeak
board panicing and throwing all of the 4 years of progress away because they
didn't understand the extent of it. They too went back to a 3.10 base image and
forked, so now it does indeed look like squeak made no progress. My point of
view is that squeak has made much more progress on important things than pharo
has. When I started using squeak it was unusable because it wasn't possible to
load anything due to lack of documentation of dependencies. Now due to
politics all of those advances have been binned and so Pharo wins by
default.
There should not even be a competition. I detest competition, and because
everything I have tried to do in collaboration over 4 years has ended up in a
competition, this has led me to simply leave the community. In 4 years I have
only ever had 2 people offer to work with me on something.
The Pharo team never asked for the opportunity to develop the new version
of squeak if they had submitted a proposal at the time, I am sure it would have
been considered. However they didn't want to be involved in the politics,
and I cant say I blame them.
Keith _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
>>
> The Pharo team never asked for the opportunity to develop the new version of squeak if they had submitted a proposal at the time, I am sure it would have been considered. People were against the roadmap we sent for after 3.9 (you remember that) then we were idiots because we use MC, did traits and a lot more kind of shit. > However they didn't want to be involved in the politics, and I cant say I blame them. > >> Anyhow, better package >> management and code sharing (simpler) would be great :) > > Sake/Packages was available a year ago I know, I read it and I could not understand. I even tried to write a book chapter on it but I failed. I can send the draft to prove it. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2009, at 19:37, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Did you read the class comment? Did you see the video on vimeo? Keith _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
On 16 Dec 2009, at 19:37, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Sorry Stef but that sounds ridiculous. to load Installer install: 'Packages'. Packages load: 'Seaside'. how hard can it be? Keith _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
>
yes after way after....
>>>> >>> The Pharo team never asked for the opportunity to develop the new version of squeak if they had submitted a proposal at the time, I am sure it would have been considered. >> >> People were against the roadmap we sent for after 3.9 (you remember that) then we were idiots because we use MC, did traits and a lot more kind of shit. >> >>> However they didn't want to be involved in the politics, and I cant say I blame them. >>> >>>> Anyhow, better package >>>> management and code sharing (simpler) would be great :) >>> >>> Sake/Packages was available a year ago >> >> I know, I read it and I could not understand. I even tried to write a book chapter on it >> but I failed. I can send the draft to prove it. > > Did you read the class comment? > > Did you see the video on vimeo? I even got your voice :) But I understand your feeling. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
2009/12/16 keith <[hidden email]>:
> > On 16 Dec 2009, at 08:15, GeertClaes wrote: > > I don't know the entire background and I most definitively don't want to > start something here but it looks like politics. The "Pharo Project" team > seems to have achieved more in 1 year than Squeak had in a decade - from my > point of view :) > > Yeah but I actually had a plan, and that plan was manifest in lots of > technology improvements that are external to the core. The fact that pharo > core moved on, did not mean that it was leaving squeak behind, because Pharo > still doesn't have have any of those improvements, you are still limping > along with only one core group of developers in charge, no test tools, and > none of the actual problems I need fixing have been fixed yet. (changes file > limits?) We were just putting our emphasis in different places. We wanted > tools like atomic loading. (unfortunately Pharo team took the expertise > needed to make that happen) > People doing actual work can cope with a less than optimal core for a few > years. However having package management and testing tools that work is far > more useful. We did all that in the squeak community. But due to the squeak > board panicing and throwing all of the 4 years of progress away because they > didn't understand the extent of it. They too went back to a 3.10 base image > and forked, so now it does indeed look like squeak made no progress. My > point of view is that squeak has made much more progress on important things > than pharo has. When I started using squeak it was unusable because it > wasn't possible to load anything due to lack of documentation of > dependencies. Now due to politics all of those advances have been binned and > so Pharo wins by default. > There should not even be a competition. I detest competition, and because > everything I have tried to do in collaboration over 4 years has ended up in > a competition, this has led me to simply leave the community. In 4 years I > have only ever had 2 people offer to work with me on something. > > I am a bit confused what the idea of Squeak using PharoCore as the base (or > core) would be? Is the suggestion to have Squeak become a sub-project of > > No the idea would be to share common core packages such as Network, > Collections, Compiler, building upon usage of common packages such as MC and > SUnit, which are needed for loading and testing. > > Pharo, building on top of PharoCore in a similar way as Pharo (dev/web) > does? I wouldn't think the Squeak team is willing to handover the "core" to > Pharo, otherwise there would never have been a Pharo project in the first > place .... or am I barking up the wrong tree? > > The Pharo team never asked for the opportunity to develop the new version of > squeak if they had submitted a proposal at the time, I am sure it would have > been considered. However they didn't want to be involved in the politics, > and I cant say I blame them. > > Anyhow, better package > management and code sharing (simpler) would be great :) > > Sake/Packages was available a year ago. > I could commet in a detail on things which i don't agree with you, but i don't want to repeat myself. Words already been said (multiple times) and if you would want to listen, you will hear. But you seem simply not listening or just ignoring. And then don't you think that you not better than others, who not willing to listen, but feel offended that nobody seem wants to listen them? Such attitude makes any compromise impossible & futile. And, Keith, each time you start blaming someone, ask yourself, what makes you better than others and gives you the right to judge people and their decisions, putting a labels on them and finally blame for things what they never did. Listen and be heard(c) > Keith > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Em 16/12/2009 08:15, Stéphane Ducasse < [hidden email] > escreveu:
> You are too meta for me :) > What do you suggest in basic terms (yes this is too early for me > but my brain is starting to work again). > Now just a point. The squeak archives is full of our > history. Historians can go there and get the why we are here, what > we did and what was the problem at that point. And I believe that > they will really deeply understand. We only did one fork, some other > did multiple ones but apparently they had the rights to do > so. Newcomers can judge but may be they are wrong too :) > Guys let us continue build a shiny future this is more fun than ego > problems. My goal with pharo is > > - to create a world where people can make a living with an > open-source smalltalk. > - make it credible to the outside world (you know python, ruby, lua, java....) > - make sure that we can adapt to the future changes > - be the substrate of people new inventions > - learn and expand my knowledge > Stef > PS: I should not have forwarded this mail, I was dreaming about a > better world but it does not exist so let us continue Stef, From time to time have a message like this is not something you should shy away from, but instead send it as a leadership call. Also, as Pharo is now a reality is no longer only a dream but a _vision_. As we're articulating on having funding, etc., it's becoming more than a vision but a _project_! my 0.019999.... -- Cesar Rabak _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Colin cites that his reason for not considering Bob as an option is that Bob requires Sake in the image to be built which it doesn't. He then defines a set of requirements for Mason which are EXACTLY THE SAME as those which Bob had, since Bob 1 was written in ruby in Jan 2007. Mason defines a hierarchy of build targets with dependencies?, hmm dependencies where have I heard that word before, oh yes Metacello, Universes, SM3, Sake/Packages and what framework was developed as a minimal implementation of a dependency structure, Sake. Why didn't Colin use Bob? Why didn't Mason use Sake? Why didnt metacello consider Sake, or SM3 consider Sake, it smells somewhat of "not invented here". Do you think I have a clue what I am doing when I write something like Sake? No I haven't got a clue, I have never even understood how 'make' works. So I have a go, I learn on the job, sake is on iteration 2.5 as it is, and it would be nice to have some help, I look forward to others joining in and being community to help were I am weak. However what do those others do, they do their own thing because they are too elitist and hotshot to consider contributing to an existing public project that couldn't possibly be worthy of their esteemed input. Installer is an OPEN community project, I did version 1, Matthew did most of version 2. Along comes Gofer with some new ideas, does gofer contribute to the community supporting vision of a unified extendable DSL for installing things, or does it compete? Before you accuse me of judging, I never said that Sake was technically perfect, but it was there FIRST as an open community project for anyone and everyone to contribute to, so was squeaksource/Testing and MC1.5 these were all the first OPEN to all contributor projects. We were not proud, we would like to have contributors helping, (that would perhaps help me to develop the commercial side of my business a bit, instead I go bankrupt), so with Sake there is an OPEN project interested in providing a framework for supporting dependent tasks. Given a choice of contributing or competing, the choice appears always to be to compete. This is not good in my opinion and it has to change. Obviously I am not the one to change it because I get too hot under the collar and I can't do politics. This is why Matthew was the 3.11 release team leader officially, as the political leader, to protect me from my own ineptitude at politics, hmm, it didn't quite work did it. Do you think that Bob could have benefitted from Colins experience? I think it could. Why is it acceptable for me to spend $30k of my own time and resources developing something as a project for the community to contribute to and participate in, only to have it flushed down the toliet by someone who is being paid a packet, and can't even be bothered to email out a question like "does Bob do this already?", or "can I help?". Same goes for Dale, he is being paid to do this stuff, so is Stef and Marcus. Whereas every hour I spend on this work for the benefit of the community costs me in time I could have spent on paid work, I am not even just a volunteer, I am actually paying to contribute to these projects that no one wants. What is particularly upsetting is when the board say they want it, and vote on and approve written proposals to that effect. Come to think about it I think that the squeak-board and Andreas owe me about $30k in compensation for wasted effort. I always use other peoples stuff. Everything I do uses other people's stuff, I have always fixed bugs and fed back every problem I have ever found, contributing to their projects as best I can. If I have an idea I look to see if anyone else is doing it and I seek to contribute to that project not to compete with it. I choose to enter dialog, simply because it is easier if someone else has already done the work. Every contribution that I have made has been for the benefit of everyone else, and built on the work of others, and I have sacrificed a lot of paid work to make those contributions. Every contribution I have ever made has been aimed for use by all users of squeak/pharo whatever the image they are currently stuck using, even if it is 3.7. Most of the audience here and over on squeak-dev is only developing for one image and one set of users, so perhaps I do have the moral high ground here, and I feel I may be joined here by the likes of Nick Cellier who has also been contributing equally for everyone. Now if I can make numerous contributions for 4 years that everyone can use, such as Rio, Logging, Sake, Sake/Packages, Installer, MC1.5, Bob, Sake/Scheduler, Jetsam, Beach etc then with a minor modicum of thought so can everyone else on some projects at least. For example HTTPClient, Network, Collections, NewCompiler, Preferences, DS, changes, closures etc. This partisan politics of pharo camps, squeak camps, is all utter rubbish. It is laziness, simply because no one can be bothered to talk to each other, or to plan what they are doing, or to define an API, and no one in charge has the backbone or political will to say "We will contribute to, and use this project X as a common resource for all". Effort is needed to develop integration and testing servers that would underpin such approaches and this is needed upfront in advance of relentless image hacking. (Bob2 was essentially finished in February 2009) That was the basis of the proposal to the squeak board you know all about, that the board has subsequently abandoned, so now the squeak release team is also now only developing for their own clique. Pharo or Squeak progress isn't planned, you can't tell me what Stefane or Andreas is going to announce next! This isn't really software engineering, it is hacking about reminiscent of what we used to do as schoolboys. What happened to release early and often that the Smalltalk community invented. Where are the CRC cards and the prioritization, what is the working rate of the team etc. We are supposed to be the elite, knowledgeable in Extreme programming techniques, well Pharo isn't releasing on a monthly cycle, and Squeak certainly isn't. I cant tell my bosses what features will be coming online in the next 3 months that we could plan to use. With Andreas' contribution Squeak would have started with bi-monthly releases in August, we would have been working on Squeak 3.13-beta by now if Andreas hadn't butted in with his old style hack away, wait a year or two for a release of I know not what, methods. I thought that if you want to plan you make an announcement, like we used to do. "We want to move such and such a feature forward, the repository is here, would you like to join us". What I want to know is why when someone attempts to say "We will open up project X as a common resource for all" the default reaction is not to contribute but to compete and start your own project? When in 2006 the consensus opinion is that progress was needed I decided to volunteer in some small way. Recognizing that the image needed to move towards a kernel image, one small step, I started with some small projects. I have 32 years programming experience, and I have been using SUnit since 1999ish, my first project ran to 2000 tests in ST/X so I know a little bit about how SUnit could be improved with the ability to categorize tests. I am not some fresh faced coder from graduate school, I felt that if anyone was qualified to make a small contribution to SUnit I was. So we announced some ideas, and made everything public and open for contributions we moved SUnit into a separate repository (squeaksource/Testing) and looked towards combining it with SSpec, we added lots of new features for categorizing tests and a file output based TestReporter which generates results for http display and download using apache. We also added hooks to invoke tests suites from the command line. This was offered as the planned community way forward for SUnit in Sept 2006ish FOR EVERYONE as encouraged by Stefane in the first place and at the time it all worked reasonably well in squeak 3.9. So then stefane starts Pharo and the pharo team ignore squeaksource/Testing completely and their fresh faced graduate students start making things incompatible, they are actively UNDERMINING all progress that had been made. This isn't just rude, this is patently hostile to any efforts to enable collaboration to happen. It also completely scuppers me because I need the input of others particularly experienced Pharo people contributing to the team in order for it to function. MC1.6 atomic loading needed pharo input to be able to load traits, and that input never happened, and never could happen, because pharo began using a MC that was 2 years behind. This is basically an approach which is destructive to the community, and it is a result of political decision making, whether to support a project as an external resource for everyone to use, or whether to act like control freaks and to retain ownership of a package, (and break it for everyone else) that we really need to be developed for the benefit of all as a matter of importance to be common between all squeak/pharo camps. I have volunteered since July 2006 in an active manner. Much of this was at the suggestion of Stefane who made some proposals as to what was needed at the time. So I was encouraged by stefane to move some things forward. So... when after moving things forward in squeaksource/Testing and making it completely loadable, Stefane and gang then choose to use as a starting point the status of things in 3.9, without considering the input of anyone that had contributed in the intervening period of almost 2 years, I got annoyed and I remain annoyed, because it was his idea in the first place, and his vision that I did the work for in the first place. Did Andreas build on the status of 3.11 (3.10-build) when he took over, or did he start from a starting point 3 years back? Now you have people saying that they don't see any progress in squeak for umpteen years do you wonder why? Pointing out decisions that have explicit effects is not judging. So then finally to add insult to injury the processes adopted by both the Squeak and Pharo communities effectively shut out every contribution I have made, not least because all of my contributions are supposed to be for both. For example, my contribution to Squeak is to restructure some packages, in particular Monticello and PackageInfo. Now you try loading a restructured set of packages into the trunk repository. It wont work because the trunk process starts with the MC tools loaded and the package structure already decided, not least of which is the problem that MC cant load a new version of MC into itself. So I spend 3 months of effort working on that problem (LevelPlayingField), for what? Anyhow the net result is a process which effectively to shut out my contribution that I spent a lot of time and resources on. Thanks for that! Having a process that could harness everyones contributions was a key philosophical starting point. You have to start any project with your philosophical values, and build on that. You cannot jump ship on your values without causing major upheaval. That is what happened, Andreas explicitly replaced the process that was designed to enable fundamental and important changes to happen in a planned manner with a process that makes such contributions completely impossible. While Elliot is talking about the need to build up an image from a minimal source/kernel, others are talking about reducing the image to a kernel, along comes Andreas and proposes a process based around a monolithic image. It's lunatic stuff it really is. So yes I judge people, when you make decisions that effect other people without consulting them, I think its fair to speak up. Stefane was the one in 2006 listing what features squeak definitely needed, so when I got to work I think it is the least he could do, to build on this work rather than compete with it. I used to believe that the only hope for this squeak/pharo community was for there to be a "sensible and thoughtful" squeak-dev development team following on 6-12 months behind the "forge right on ahead and innovate at all costs" pharo team. This was really only possible if pharo used common tools, which the pharo team point blank refused to do. I thought we could work around this in the short term, and pharo team would eventually see sense, being wowed by the effectiveness of Bob and the new release often process cycle. But now we have a "forge on ahead" without tools squeak-dev team as well, the joint community thing is not ever going to happen. While we have a squeak-board process that allows a newly elected person who hasn't been making any recent contributions himself to the community to then scupper 3 years of consistent beneficial work without even discussing his plans with those it effects, and the board then spouts "the end justifies the means", when it doesn't even know what the end is going to be. The squeak world is really broken because it is institutionally unpredictable and I really advise people to stay well clear. I will probably use pharo for future work now, just because I will have to use something. I might look into returning to lovely peaceful professional world of ST/X that I am beginning to miss. I am withdrawing my personal input to any of my contributions that does not contribute in some way to the bottom line, I simply cannot afford not to. I am also a full time carer, so I cant just earn nothing indefinitely. If I had time and income I might be persuaded to be nice, document stuff and play the competition game for a bit. I never wanted to compete, and I refuse to compete, all I ever wanted was for people to work together and contribute. Work on 3.11 and Bob stopped the instant that Andreas announced his competing approach, because I don't have any will to compete, this isn't a competition, we are supposed to be collaborating and communicating on a professional basis of mutual respect. lol Although Bob is finished and operational, I won't make any further contribution until that contribution is towards an actual vision of benefit to the community. While Andreas is competing with pharo, his vision is not helpful to anyone, while pharo's vision is to ignore everyone else, their vision is not helpful either. The previous squeak 3.11 vision was purposefully orthogonal to the pharo one, and so the two would have been able to fit together with the minimal of effort. If someone wants to support the vision of continuing to develop tools that we can use to bring the communities together then we stand a chance of moving forward and I would be happy to advise, but I am unable to contribute to this vision any further for financial reasons. So to answer your questions... yes I think I can judge because at least I have made an effort to contribute and harmonize all along. As far as listening is concerned there is nothing I can do. I no longer have any resources to do anything with what I hear. My ranting merely serves to inform those who want to compete rather than to contribute that they have won by default by walking over everything that has gone before. I can't compete, so you have a choice, you either use the extensive work which with has been done on your behalf or you throw it away. I am no longer in a position to effect things either way, since I have been unable due circumstances to write a single line of code since the squeak board acted as they did. Ranting is all I have left that I can do. sorry Keith _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
2009/12/16 keith <[hidden email]>
[screed deleted]
Law 9
WIN THROUGH YOUR ACTIONS, NEVER THROUGH ARGUMENT Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrric victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |