Hi guys
I spend my time recategorizing methods. I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. It is like throwing papers on the floor. So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. Any ideas? 'you are a dirty programmer - change me' Stef |
2013/1/29 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:
> Hi guys > > I spend my time recategorizing methods. > > I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. > It is like throwing papers on the floor. > So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. > Any ideas? Recategorizing means assigning categories to methods, not classification, so "unclassified" is not the proper word. So for me "uncategorized" would be a good fit. Regards. |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
'CATEGORIZE ME'
Because smalltalkers hate upper cased letters, so everyone will categorize them quickly ;)
On 29 janv. 2013, at 16:57, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
|
+1 :)
Ben
On Jan 29, 2013, at 5:06 PM, wam <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
While on the topic, some of the category chooser dialogs are sorted so
that the extensions are listed first - which I find annoying (in 1.4). In 2.0 can the standard categories be shown first ? Also, I still struggle to really be confident I am choosing the right categories. Perhaps down the track, a feature useful for newcomers might be a tooltip when hovering over items on the category list, or alternatively, hover showing a list of the ten most common methods appearing in that category. cheers -ben Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > Hi guys > > I spend my time recategorizing methods. > > I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. > It is like throwing papers on the floor. > So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. > > > Any ideas? > > 'you are a dirty programmer - change me' > > > Stef > > > > > |
In reply to this post by camille teruel
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:06 PM, wam wrote: > 'CATEGORIZE ME' > Because smalltalkers hate upper cased letters, so everyone will categorize them quickly ;) :) may be should add 'ASs****' I really hate hate hate all this easy sloppiness. Stef > > On 29 janv. 2013, at 16:57, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> >> I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. >> It is like throwing papers on the floor. >> So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. > |
In reply to this post by Ben Coman
On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Ben Coman wrote: > While on the topic, some of the category chooser dialogs are sorted so that the extensions are listed first - which I find annoying (in 1.4). In 2.0 can the standard categories be shown first ? > > Also, I still struggle to really be confident I am choosing the right categories. Perhaps down the track, a feature useful for newcomers might be a tooltip when hovering over items on the category list, or alternatively, hover showing a list of the ten most common methods appearing in that category. could be really neat :) > > cheers -ben > > Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> Hi guys >> >> I spend my time recategorizing methods. >> I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. >> It is like throwing papers on the floor. >> So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. >> >> >> Any ideas? >> >> 'you are a dirty programmer - change me' >> >> >> Stef >> >> >> >> >> > > |
Code with "as yet unclassified" methods should be rejected by the monkey !
Ben On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
On 29 janv. 2013, at 23:21, Benjamin wrote: Code with "as yet unclassified" methods should be rejected by the monkey ! +1
|
In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)
Ok but in 3.0
We will kill that bad habit. We should investigate in an automatic categorizer. There was one I should have a look one of these days (since I do not know what to do :)). Stef > Code with "as yet unclassified" methods should be rejected by the monkey ! > > Ben > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Ben Coman wrote: >> >>> While on the topic, some of the category chooser dialogs are sorted so that the extensions are listed first - which I find annoying (in 1.4). In 2.0 can the standard categories be shown first ? >>> >>> Also, I still struggle to really be confident I am choosing the right categories. Perhaps down the track, a feature useful for newcomers might be a tooltip when hovering over items on the category list, or alternatively, hover showing a list of the ten most common methods appearing in that category. >> >> could be really neat :) >> >>> >>> cheers -ben >>> >>> Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> I spend my time recategorizing methods. >>>> I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. >>>> It is like throwing papers on the floor. >>>> So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Any ideas? >>>> >>>> 'you are a dirty programmer - change me' >>>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > |
In reply to this post by Benjamin Van Ryseghem (Pharo)
Hi, if you look closely at the attached screenshots, you will find that being sloppy is a side-effect of modern times! The "unclassified" method category is missing from both the Smalltalk 76 and Smalltalk 80 tools.
Fernando On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: Ok but in 3.0 |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
In Pharo 20498, sorted by author in the method timestamp:
gvc 1550 AlainPlantec 320 216 GaryChambers 215 CamilloBruni 163 IgorStasenko 159 stephaneducasse 152 avi 148 Igor.Stasenko 128 StephaneDucasse 85 SeanDeNigris 81 MarcusDenker 78 ab 75 GuillermoPolito 68 tween 52 BenjaminVanRyseghem 51 ar 46 di 40 RAA 38 alain.plantec 38 EstebanLorenzano 35 FernandoOlivero 33 nice 31 tk 29 nk 28 cwp 26 dvf 22 rr 20 PavelKrivanek 18 MarianoMartinezPeck 18 yo 18 sd 18 bf 16 SvenVanCaekenberghe 16 JMM 16 marcus.denker 14 wiz 12 ajh 12 mjr 12 cipt 10 abc 10 md 10 HenrikSperreJohansen 9 MikeRoberts 8 AndyKellens 6 LukasRenggli 6 noha 6 ClementBera 6 jrd 6 GastonDallOglio 6 2011-01-24T15:34:00+01:00 6 DeboraFortini 5 stephane.ducasse 5 lr 5 2011-01-24T15:33:00+01:00 4 dgd 4 DamienCassou 4 TestRunner 4 bkv 4 BG 4 Alexandre 4 AndrewBlack 4 sw 4 SimonAllier 3 DanielAvivEstebanAllende 3 ASB 2 mas 2 pmm 2 simondenier 2 BernardoContreras 2 th 2 damienpollet 2 NicoPaez 2 CamilloBrui 2 sps 2 MiguelCoba 2 eem 2 NikoSchwarz 2 JavierPimas 2 GabrielOmarCotelli 2 mir 2 ul 2 2011-01-24T15:50:00+01:00 2 jf 2 c 2 ls 2 al 2 NorbertHartl 2 djp 2 AdrianLienhard 2 TorstenBergmann 2 AlexandreBergel 2 tbn 2 DiogenesMoreira 2 GuyHylton 1 ThierryGoubier 1 |
holy s**t , 35!
and I'm more or less a maniac of classification :P On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: > In Pharo 20498, sorted by author in the method timestamp: > > gvc 1550 > AlainPlantec 320 > 216 > GaryChambers 215 > CamilloBruni 163 > IgorStasenko 159 > stephaneducasse 152 > avi 148 > Igor.Stasenko 128 > StephaneDucasse 85 > SeanDeNigris 81 > MarcusDenker 78 > ab 75 > GuillermoPolito 68 > tween 52 > BenjaminVanRyseghem 51 > ar 46 > di 40 > RAA 38 > alain.plantec 38 > EstebanLorenzano 35 > FernandoOlivero 33 > nice 31 > tk 29 > nk 28 > cwp 26 > dvf 22 > rr 20 > PavelKrivanek 18 > MarianoMartinezPeck 18 > yo 18 > sd 18 > bf 16 > SvenVanCaekenberghe 16 > JMM 16 > marcus.denker 14 > wiz 12 > ajh 12 > mjr 12 > cipt 10 > abc 10 > md 10 > HenrikSperreJohansen 9 > MikeRoberts 8 > AndyKellens 6 > LukasRenggli 6 > noha 6 > ClementBera 6 > jrd 6 > GastonDallOglio 6 > 2011-01-24T15:34:00+01:00 6 > DeboraFortini 5 > stephane.ducasse 5 > lr 5 > 2011-01-24T15:33:00+01:00 4 > dgd 4 > DamienCassou 4 > TestRunner 4 > bkv 4 > BG 4 > Alexandre 4 > AndrewBlack 4 > sw 4 > SimonAllier 3 > DanielAvivEstebanAllende 3 > ASB 2 > mas 2 > pmm 2 > simondenier 2 > BernardoContreras 2 > th 2 > damienpollet 2 > NicoPaez 2 > CamilloBrui 2 > sps 2 > MiguelCoba 2 > eem 2 > NikoSchwarz 2 > JavierPimas 2 > GabrielOmarCotelli 2 > mir 2 > ul 2 > 2011-01-24T15:50:00+01:00 2 > jf 2 > c 2 > ls 2 > al 2 > NorbertHartl 2 > djp 2 > AdrianLienhard 2 > TorstenBergmann 2 > AlexandreBergel 2 > tbn 2 > DiogenesMoreira 2 > GuyHylton 1 > ThierryGoubier 1 > |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
In Pharo 20498, sorted by package name
Polymorph-Widgets 1116 Polymorph-Widgets-Windows 615 Polymorph-Tools-Diff 260 Monticello-Repositories 240 Morphic-MorphTreeWidget-Examples 192 Monticello-Versioning 144 NativeBoost-Core-Types 104 Monticello-Storing 66 NativeBoost-Core-Objects 60 Graphics-Fonts 56 NativeBoost-Tests 55 Balloon-Fills 54 FreeTypeTests-cache 52 Text-Core 50 AST-Core-Visitors 48 Tests-Bugs 46 Collections-Streams 44 Morphic-Borders 44 Polymorph-Widgets-Themes 42 Keymapping-Tests 39 Monticello-Modeling 38 Tests-Traits 38 Morphic-Text Support 32 MonticelloGUI 31 NOCompletion-Model 30 Monticello-Patching 28 Morphic-Explorer 28 Morphic-MorphTreeWidget 26 RPackage-Tests 22 Monticello-Mocks 21 Tests-Monticello 20 Keymapping-Shortcuts 20 Polymorph-Geometry 20 NativeBoost-Core 19 NativeBoost-Core-FFI 18 Tests-Polymorph-Widgets 18 SUnit-Core-Utilities 18 Compiler-Exceptions 18 Tools-Explorer 18 NativeBoost-Win32 16 Tests-SystemHistory 16 Files-Kernel 14 CollectionsTests-Weak 14 CompilerTests 14 Tools-Inspector 12 CollectionsTests-Arrayed 12 CollectionsTests-Sequenceable 12 NativeBoost-Core-Heap 12 CollectionsTests-Strings 12 Tests-ObjectsAsMethods 12 Tests-System 12 Traits-Kernel 10 Morphic-ProgressBar 10 MorphicTests-Kernel 10 NativeBoost-Core-Errors 10 Tools-Debugger 10 Morphic-Basic 10 KernelTests-Methods 10 Morphic-Menus 10 AsmJit-StackManagement 9 Morphic-Pluggable Widgets 8 Kernel-Exceptions 8 System-Changes 8 Tools-FileList 8 NautilusCommon-Refactor 8 Kernel-Methods 8 Morphic-Events 8 FileSystem-Core-Implementation 8 MorphicTests-Widgets 6 NativeBoost-Mac 6 AST-Core-Nodes 6 ToolsTest-PointerFinder 6 FileSystem-Tests-Core 6 Kernel-Pragmas-Collector 6 MonticelloMocks 6 Tests-TextEditors 6 KernelTests-Classes 6 SUnit-Core-Kernel 6 HudsonBuildTools20 6 System-Settings-Core 6 KernelTests-Chronology 6 Spec-Widgets 6 ScriptLoader20 5 NetworkTests-Protocols 4 Spec-Tests 4 FreeType-FontManager 4 Morphic-Widgets 4 System-Announcements 4 NautilusCommon-Plugin 4 Morphic-WindowNotification 4 Collections-Abstract 4 Text-Edition 4 Manifest-Resources-Tests 3 UIManager-Support 2 Nautilus-Widgets 2 KernelTests-Processes 2 Collections-Arithmetic 2 KernelTests-Numbers 2 Network-Protocols 2 Spec-Bindings 2 CollectionsTests-Unordered 2 Kernel-Classes 2 Network-Kernel 2 Tools-Base 2 Kernel-Processes 2 NativeBoost-Examples 2 NECompletion-Model 2 FileSystem-Zip 2 Tests-PackageInfo 2 Compression-Streams 2 FileSystem-Core-Public 2 MenuRegistration-Core 2 Tools-Finder 2 FileSystem-Core-Kernel 2 System-FileRegistry 2 Zinc-Tests 2 Spec-Core 2 Graphics-Display Objects 2 Morphic-Kernel 2 Network-URI 2 Nautilus-Tests 2 Collections-Support 2 System-FilePackage 2 Morphic-Support 2 Morphic-Worlds 2 FuelTests 2 NewClassOrganizer 1 Refactoring-Tests-Critics 1 CI-Core 1 Morphic 1 Ring-Tests-Kernel 1 Keymapping-Pragmas 1 UIManager 1 FileSystem-Disk 1 |
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Ben
On Jan 30, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: In Pharo 20498, sorted by author in the method timestamp: |
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
I think that classification is a matter of time and maturity of what you are doing. When I'm programming, using TDD or in the debugger, I don't care about categorization, I don't want to be stopped or slowed down by that.
But before I commit the code, I run SmallLint and solve all the uncategorized methods. That is the time when I have the whole picture and can do a better categorization. So having a "not categorized yet" category for me is fine, it is part of the iterative development process.
I would not change the tools, but I would force during the integration that no package will be integrated if it has uncategorized methods, the same if it has smalllint errors (at least errors, no possible errors).
Hernan. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: holy s**t , 35! Hernán Wilkinson Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching Phone: +54 - 011 - 6091 - 3125
Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207 email: [hidden email] site: http://www.10Pines.com Address: Alem 693, Floor 5 B, Buenos Aires, Argentina
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Euh, I want to fix some of them !
Stephan, Could you express this query in executable code ? I am guessing you did this with Moose ? Can it be done in plain Smalltalk ? Sven On 30 Jan 2013, at 14:02, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote: > In Pharo 20498, sorted by author in the method timestamp: > > gvc 1550 > AlainPlantec 320 > 216 > GaryChambers 215 > CamilloBruni 163 > IgorStasenko 159 > stephaneducasse 152 > avi 148 > Igor.Stasenko 128 > StephaneDucasse 85 > SeanDeNigris 81 > MarcusDenker 78 > ab 75 > GuillermoPolito 68 > tween 52 > BenjaminVanRyseghem 51 > ar 46 > di 40 > RAA 38 > alain.plantec 38 > EstebanLorenzano 35 > FernandoOlivero 33 > nice 31 > tk 29 > nk 28 > cwp 26 > dvf 22 > rr 20 > PavelKrivanek 18 > MarianoMartinezPeck 18 > yo 18 > sd 18 > bf 16 > SvenVanCaekenberghe 16 > JMM 16 > marcus.denker 14 > wiz 12 > ajh 12 > mjr 12 > cipt 10 > abc 10 > md 10 > HenrikSperreJohansen 9 > MikeRoberts 8 > AndyKellens 6 > LukasRenggli 6 > noha 6 > ClementBera 6 > jrd 6 > GastonDallOglio 6 > 2011-01-24T15:34:00+01:00 6 > DeboraFortini 5 > stephane.ducasse 5 > lr 5 > 2011-01-24T15:33:00+01:00 4 > dgd 4 > DamienCassou 4 > TestRunner 4 > bkv 4 > BG 4 > Alexandre 4 > AndrewBlack 4 > sw 4 > SimonAllier 3 > DanielAvivEstebanAllende 3 > ASB 2 > mas 2 > pmm 2 > simondenier 2 > BernardoContreras 2 > th 2 > damienpollet 2 > NicoPaez 2 > CamilloBrui 2 > sps 2 > MiguelCoba 2 > eem 2 > NikoSchwarz 2 > JavierPimas 2 > GabrielOmarCotelli 2 > mir 2 > ul 2 > 2011-01-24T15:50:00+01:00 2 > jf 2 > c 2 > ls 2 > al 2 > NorbertHartl 2 > djp 2 > AdrianLienhard 2 > TorstenBergmann 2 > AlexandreBergel 2 > tbn 2 > DiogenesMoreira 2 > GuyHylton 1 > ThierryGoubier 1 > |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
As there was a discussion on the Pharo mailing list on the number of these methods,
I thought to check in the 4.3 one-click too. Some synchronisation would be possible by adding a hash over the method source, compare one method in the other system to see if it was classified there. Stephan #unclassified methods by package Etoys-Experimental 126 Morphic-Widgets 112 MorphicExtras-GeeMail 94 Collections-Text 90 Monticello-Repositories 79 ToolsTests-Browser 76 Multilingual-Display 76 Monticello-UI 72 Nebraska-Morphic-Collaborative 62 Monticello-Versioning 61 Tests-Monticello 52 Multilingual-TextConversion 49 Monticello-Merging 46 MorphicExtras-Demo 46 Morphic-Windows 45 MorphicExtras-Books 39 Etoys-Outliner 35 Tools-Browser 33 Network-RemoteDirectory 33 Tests-Bugs 32 Compression-Streams 32 Monticello-Storing 31 Sound-Scores 28 Tests-Monticello-Mocks 28 MorphicExtras-Navigators 27 MorphicExtras-AdditionalSupport 25 Morphic-Explorer 24 Nebraska-Morphic-Remote 22 Monticello-Patching 22 Tests-Files 20 Monticello-Chunk Format 20 Morphic-Text Support 20 Nebraska-Morphic-Experimental 20 Exceptions-Kernel 16 MorphicExtras-Text Support 16 MorphicExtras-Support 15 Monticello-Modeling 15 Sound-Synthesis 14 Tools-Inspector 14 MorphicExtras-Palettes 11 MorphicExtras-SoundInterface 10 Collections-Streams 10 TraitsTests-Kernel 10 Tests-Utilities 9 System-Changes 9 ST80-Pluggable Views 9 MorphicExtras-AdditionalWidgets 8 Installer-Core 7 Compiler-Exceptions 7 Morphic-Menus-DockingBar 7 Nebraska-Network-ObjectSocket 7 Files-Kernel 7 Monticello-Loading 6 ST80-Views 6 MorphicExtras-Widgets 6 MorphicExtras-AdditionalMorphs 6 Tests-ObjectsAsMethods 6 Multilingual-Editor 5 SMBase-domain 5 MorphicTests-Widgets 5 Nebraska-Audio Chat 5 MorphicTests-Kernel 5 ToolBuilder-Kernel 5 ST80-Controllers 4 Etoys-Stacks 4 Morphic-Menus 4 ST80-Framework 4 MorphicExtras-SqueakPage 4 CollectionsTests-Weak 4 MorphicTests-Layouts 4 Morphic-Pluggable Widgets 4 SUnit-Tests 4 Tests-Hex 4 ToolBuilder-SUnit 3 Etoys-Scripting 3 Graphics-Fonts 3 Kernel-Methods 3 Multilingual-Scanning 3 Files-Directories 3 SUnit-Extensions 3 ToolBuilder-Morphic 3 SystemChangeNotification-Tests 3 Morphic-Basic 3 ST80-Support 2 Network-Kernel 2 Etoys-Scripting Tiles 2 Kernel-Classes 2 Graphics-Primitives 2 Collections-Arrayed 2 MorphicExtras-Postscript Canvases 2 Services-Base 2 Graphics-Display Objects 2 Balloon-Fills 2 NetworkTests-UUID 1 PackageInfo-Base 1 Tools-FileList 1 CollectionsTests-Text 1 NetworkTests-RFC822 1 Services-Base-GUI 1 Tests-System-Support 1 System-Support 1 ST80-Editors 1 Etoys-Tile Scriptors 1 System-FileRegistry 1 Etoys-Scripting Support 1 NetworkTests-Url 1 Morphic-Kernel 1 ToolsTests-Inspector 1 #unclassified methods by author RAA 438 stephaneducasse 145 ar 144 avi 99 yo 97 gvc 80 fbs 80 tk 80 di 76 nice 73 ab 73 sd 58 jm 47 dgd 44 sw 41 ul 35 nk 35 cmm 27 27 cwp 26 bf 26 md 19 kb 12 wiz 12 jrp 11 kph 7 dvf 6 Tsutomu 6 ajh 6 mjr 6 ls 6 rej 6 apb 5 dtl 5 acg 4 gk 4 sbw 4 abc 4 bp 4 nb 4 jmv 3 spfa 3 laza 3 rr 3 JPF 3 MarcusDenker 3 al 3 Igor.Stasenko 3 BG 2 tetha 2 pk 2 btc 2 jrd 2 eem 2 mha 2 tfel 2 mir 1 jcg 1 mist 1 LC 1 tlk 1 djp 1 sumim 1 DSM 1 TN 1 aoy 1 DF 1 alain.plantec 1 gm 1 th 1 bvs 1 sma 1 jf 1 sps 1 tonyg 1 hh 1 tak 1 ' |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Sven wrote:
>Euh, I want to fix some of them ! Good, that was the idea :) I was inspired by Doru's humane assessment primer. >Could you express this query in executable code ? >I am guessing you did this with Moose ? >Can it be done in plain Smalltalk ? I opened a Moose to take a look at the Mondrian examples, then copied that. This is the version that runs in both Squeak and Pharo. Open a workspace, Print-it on Unclassified new byAuthor Unclassified new byPackage This package intentionally contains some unclassified methods :) UnclassifiedMethods-SJCE.2.mcz (4K) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Am 29.01.2013 um 16:57 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: > Hi guys > > I spend my time recategorizing methods. > > I would like the change the intention of 'as yet unclassified' because this is a PLAGUE. > It is like throwing papers on the floor. > So we should have a different name to indicate that it should be fixed. > > > Any ideas? > > 'you are a dirty programmer - change me' > To be honest I have problems understanding why method categorization is so important. Often I don't care a single bit about categories because I don't understand them. I often categorize just to make lint happy :) What is the use? Declaring usage patterns? Declaring visibility? Use as method extensions marker? anything you like just classify? I can understand that it can help making the access of certain methods of a class easier. But that is particular true for classes with a lot of methods. Most of the classes are rather small. In most of my own developments I would consider most huge classes a design problem in my code. So I would try to fix that. And finally it is not easy to learn about them because the browser is not helping. If you browse through the methods of a class the category pane doesn't get updated. So even if I want to learn by getting used to them it is hard. I would make the none categorized term weaker by naming it "uncategorizied" so at least I have the change to deliberately not categorizing my methods without being annoyed by someones opinion about what is essential. my 2 cents, Norbert |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |