Google Summer Of Code 2010 news!!!

>  It's more of a Smalltalk descendant. It is quite easy to migrate from Smalltalk to Newspeak however; we've done that with a substantial body of code (most of the Strongtalk version of the blue book libraries, our own GUI and IDE code and a few other things) and the result is generally better than the original because of Newspeak's modularity properties.
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Josh Gargus wrote:
>
>> Since ESUG is going to act as the umbrella organization for GSoC projects in all Smalltalk dialects, perhaps this offers an opportunity for Newspeak to recruit some labor?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>
>
> Cheers, Gilad
>

>
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Gilad Bracha wrote:
>
>> Josh,
>>
>> Thanks for the thought.   I can certainly mentor such work - I'm already doing this with a number of Masters students. That said, I  have no idea if the ESUG community cares to include Newspeak related stuff in its list of projects.  My honest impression is that Newspeak doesn't really appeal to the Smalltalk community, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
>
>
> What do you base this impression on?  The amount of contributions to Newspeak?  The level of activity on the forums?
>
> I have less data to go on than you do, but my guess is that Newspeak hasn't been quite mature enough for people who want to build projects in Newspeak (as opposed to working on Newspeak itself).  It seems like the situation is steadily improving (unfortunately, I haven't yet found time to play with the most recent release).
>
> Anyway, in this case it's not the broad Smalltalk that matters, it's ESUG.  After looking at their website and the diversity of Smalltalk activities that they support, I would be surprised if they wouldn't happily include Newspeak projects under their GSoC umbrella.   Can't hurt to ask...
>
>>
>> One reason for this apparent lack of interest is that might be the fact that Newspeak is not really a Smalltalk dialect.
>
>
> It's a Smalltalk to me, along with Smalltalk-72 and Self.  I've taken it for granted that most here see it that way, but I may be wrong.  Can I get a show of hands of anyone who doesn't think Newspeak is a Smalltalk?
>
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>>  It's more of a Smalltalk descendant. It is quite easy to migrate from Smalltalk to Newspeak however; we've done that with a substantial body of code (most of the Strongtalk version of the blue book libraries, our own GUI and IDE code and a few other things) and the result is generally better than the original because of Newspeak's modularity properties.
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Josh Gargus wrote:
>>
>>> Since ESUG is going to act as the umbrella organization for GSoC projects in all Smalltalk dialects, perhaps this offers an opportunity for Newspeak to recruit some labor?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Josh
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Gilad
>>
>
>
>

> Josh,
>
> Thanks for the thought.   I can certainly mentor such work - I'm already doing this with a number of Masters students. That said, I  have no idea if the ESUG community cares to include Newspeak related stuff in its list of projects.  My honest impression is that Newspeak doesn't really appeal to the Smalltalk community, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
>
> One reason for this apparent lack of interest is that might be the fact that Newspeak is not really a Smalltalk dialect.  It's more of a Smalltalk descendant. It is quite easy to migrate from Smalltalk to Newspeak however; we've done that with a substantial body of code (most of the Strongtalk version of the blue book libraries, our own GUI and IDE code and a few other things) and the result is generally better than the original because of Newspeak's modularity properties.
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Josh Gargus wrote:
>
>> Since ESUG is going to act as the umbrella organization for GSoC projects in all Smalltalk dialects, perhaps this offers an opportunity for Newspeak to recruit some labor?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Josh
>
>
> Cheers, Gilad
>

>> >  Don't get me started on this...  Are you sure there's no more pressing
>> >  need for Swazoo?
> Certainly, like improving the HTTP Server part according to your
> suggestions and actual code. Also unifiying the portability layer (Sport
> and Grease) under a common umbrella is a good idea, then we can move
> Swazoo on that layer.
>
> But Julian's idea came just at the right moment and it has a broader
> appeal. We can then redesign the HTTP server part in the meantime. I see
> many synergies there.

>
>> + I'd really love to see a single RefactoringBrowser package that
>> could be loaded on all the platforms using Grease. I have no idea if
>> there's any chance of buy-in from the vendors on that one; maybe it
>> would need a new class name prefix so it could be loaded in
>> parallel...
>
> The various packages are all derived from the same one originally.  They
> have different GUis, and often have to interface to the system differently
> because different versions of Smalltalk have different APIs for classes and
> methods.  Does Grease provide an API for classes and methods?  Does it have
> a GUI?  Other than that, they will differ only because people have added
> features to one version and not to the other.  So, which version did you
> want to use?

> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2010 11:17 AM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >  Don't get me started on this...  Are you sure there's no more pressing
>>>> >  need for Swazoo?
>>>
>>> Certainly, like improving the HTTP Server part according to your
>>> suggestions and actual code. Also unifiying the portability layer (Sport
>>> and Grease) under a common umbrella is a good idea, then we can move
>>> Swazoo on that layer.
>>>
>>> But Julian's idea came just at the right moment and it has a broader
>>> appeal. We can then redesign the HTTP server part in the meantime. I see
>>> many synergies there.
>>
>> Ok, then I agree. :-)  But let's set the priorities straight. :-)
>
> I'm not suggesting it is the most urgent item, merely that it is
> beneficial, well defined (or at least well-scoped :) ), and
> potentially interesting for a student.

>
>> But for the moment we would REALLY appreciate if tell us your ideas. To
>> do this, just answer to this email. Then we will collect the information
>> and put in the website. For each idea you need:  a short title and a
>> paragraph (for the moment) explaining the idea.
>
>
> * MIDI support for the linux VM
>
> Basically implement the MIDI plugin that has been missing for years in the linux VM

> On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Gilad Bracha wrote:
>
>> Josh,
>>
>> Thanks for the thought.   I can certainly mentor such work - I'm already doing this with a number of Masters students. That said, I  have no idea if the ESUG community cares to include Newspeak related stuff in its list of projects.  My honest impression is that Newspeak doesn't really appeal to the Smalltalk community, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
>
>
> What do you base this impression on?  The amount of contributions to Newspeak?  The level of activity on the forums?
>
> I have less data to go on than you do, but my guess is that Newspeak hasn't been quite mature enough for people who want to build projects in Newspeak (as opposed to working on Newspeak itself).  It seems like the situation is steadily improving (unfortunately, I haven't yet found time to play with the most recent release).
>
> Anyway, in this case it's not the broad Smalltalk that matters, it's ESUG.  After looking at their website and the diversity of Smalltalk activities that they support, I would be surprised if they wouldn't happily include Newspeak projects under their GSoC umbrella.   Can't hurt to ask...
>
>> One reason for this apparent lack of interest is that might be the fact that Newspeak is not really a Smalltalk dialect.
>
>
> It's a Smalltalk to me, along with Smalltalk-72 and Self.  I've taken it for granted that most here see it that way, but I may be wrong.  Can I get a show of hands of anyone who doesn't think Newspeak is a Smalltalk?