I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

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

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

Uko2

On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:33, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:

Are those the same people that a decade ago were proclaiming Java dead ?  It only takes a walk to TIOBE INDEX to see how much of a threat mobile market is to desktop. 



http://blog.timbunce.org/2008/04/12/tiobe-or-not-tiobe-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/

I am sure Angry Birds and Candy Crash Saga are substantial opponents to Desktop but I don't see Windows sweating from agony any time soon. 


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.

Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the “death of the desktop”.
You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete.

        Marcus


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

philippeback
In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-4
Marcus,

FWIW, you are inspiring. I am amazed on how you keep the thing going.

Thanks for showing the high road.

Phil
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

kilon.alios
In reply to this post by Uko2
I think its unrealistic to expect accurate numbers in any way other than going outside and asking each coder what language he uses and for what platform. None the less, its not hard at all to validate at least with a substantial level of inaccuracy the numbers indicated by TIOBE , sure some languages may jump 2 -3 spots up and down but still the general idea is there. Mobile is nowhere near replacing desktop. And why isolate yourself to TIOBE plenty of sources online to see what interests developers the most. 

The problem with mobile is that ergonomically it has no chance of replacing desktop, well, ever. And even though new mobile devices come out with substantial hardware specs, the quality of software is underwhelming even if you compare it with desktop 10 years ago.  Even the trend of the "almost dead" desktop developers that port their apps to mobile is to created dumb down very limited apps of their desktop versions. I downloaded a first person shooter the other day , a simple game nothing that could even remotely compete with FPS behemoths of desktop or consoles , and I was amazed how cumbersome it was to even operate for simple action of shooting and walking around. I gave up after 20 minutes of suffering. 

I think mobile is great for what it is , mobile. I was a big supporter of iPad app as a musical tool in gearslutz forums when most musicians there declared it as "overly expensive toy" , I made the extremely unpopular prediction that it would be embraced by pro musicians and amateurs alike and that was back when iPad was still a new thing. But to claim that it will replace desktop , now thats a very bold claim.  

I have an iPad and android phone and android tablet. I am a fan of the mobile platform. I do believe in its potential. But killing the desktop, is like any rumor including the words "kill" or "dead" an urban myth. 


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:33, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:

Are those the same people that a decade ago were proclaiming Java dead ?  It only takes a walk to TIOBE INDEX to see how much of a threat mobile market is to desktop. 



http://blog.timbunce.org/2008/04/12/tiobe-or-not-tiobe-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/


I am sure Angry Birds and Candy Crash Saga are substantial opponents to Desktop but I don't see Windows sweating from agony any time soon. 


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:11, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I fail to see how Windows prohibited iPhone from appearing or anything in my quote saying that. They are not even in the same market.

Yet, that old market is now in a very bad shape and people talk about the “death of the desktop”.
You do not need to be in the same market if you can make the old one obsolete.

        Marcus



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2
In reply to this post by philippeback

On 03 Nov 2013, at 20:01, [hidden email] wrote:

> Marcus,
>
> FWIW, you are inspiring. I am amazed on how you keep the thing going.
>
> Thanks for showing the high road.
>
> Phil

Indeed.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

Stéphane Ducasse
In reply to this post by Uko2
+1
Pharo should be Pharo :)
And we should all push in that direction
        - minimal core
        - sweet integration with the rest of the world
        - objects
        - cool libraries


> I think that we should be passionate about what we are doing. Look at Scala for example. It’s becoming quite popular, and it was developed for 10 years. Pharo still has a lot of time to attract people, but we need to push something new. It’s not java like smalltalk, or something smalltalk-inspired that looks like C. For me Pharo is what had to happen to Smalltalk: evolution. Usually Smalltalk is mentioned with “80” suffix. Pharo is Smalltalk2013. And we can make it really cool, but we should stick to smalltalk philosophy. Having tools, working with objects, etc...


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

fstephany
In reply to this post by Camillo Bruni-3
+1

Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc.
Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not even elegant).

FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't need Github anyway...


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kilon wrote
>> I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
>
> I see some very strong arguments against depending on github:
> - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with a distributed version control system;
> - it doesn’t support working at the right granularity;
> - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the directions github is taking.
>  It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we don’t like at any time.
>  It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge;
> - we can do much better than github (but don’t have enough time). We should be using a P2P,
>  bittorrent like system for version control.

github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all.
What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a versioning
system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.

With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods)
With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to something ideal.

I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a wrong picture about it :)


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

Ben Coman
François Stephany wrote:
+1

Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a
gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc.
Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not
even elegant).
  

What do you consider are scalable alternatives for storing external files related to a project?
cheers -ben

FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't
need Github anyway...


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni [hidden email]wrote:

  
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont [hidden email] wrote:

    
Kilon wrote
      
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find
        
little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against
Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
    
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github:
- it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with
      
a distributed version control system;
    
- it doesn’t support working at the right granularity;
- the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the
      
directions github is taking.
    
 It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we
      
don’t like at any time.
    
 It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge;
- we can do much better than github (but don’t have enough time). We
      
should be using a P2P,
    
 bittorrent like system for version control.
      
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all.
What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a
versioning
system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.

With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods)
With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome
website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized.
Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another
versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in
the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning
system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to
something ideal.

I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a
wrong picture about it :)


    

  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

fstephany
Git.


On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
François Stephany wrote:
+1

Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a
gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc.
Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not
even elegant).
  

What do you consider are scalable alternatives for storing external files related to a project?
cheers -ben


FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't
need Github anyway...


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni [hidden email]wrote:

  
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont [hidden email] wrote:

    
Kilon wrote
      
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find
        
little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against
Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
    
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github:
- it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with
      
a distributed version control system;
    
- it doesn’t support working at the right granularity;
- the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the
      
directions github is taking.
    
 It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we
      
don’t like at any time.
    
 It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge;
- we can do much better than github (but don’t have enough time). We
      
should be using a P2P,
    
 bittorrent like system for version control.
      
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all.
What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a
versioning
system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.

With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods)
With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome
website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized.
Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another
versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in
the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning
system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to
something ideal.

I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a
wrong picture about it :)


    
  


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

kilon.alios
I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it  from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited, meaning that if you commit in a directory of 100 mb of data, then you will get 100 mb per commit, will take you only 10 commits for 1 GB. All that assuming that that data is tracked by your git repo (git add). 

So if you dont want to version control that data, it would make more sense to use something like dropbox or torrents etc. Dropbox also offers some very basic version control, but its very limited AFAIK. 


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM, François Stephany <[hidden email]> wrote:
Git.


On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
François Stephany wrote:
+1

Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a
gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc.
Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not
even elegant).
  

What do you consider are scalable alternatives for storing external files related to a project?
cheers -ben


FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't
need Github anyway...


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni [hidden email]wrote:

  
On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont [hidden email] wrote:

    
Kilon wrote
      
I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find
        
little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against
Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier.
    
I see some very strong arguments against depending on github:
- it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with
      
a distributed version control system;
    
- it doesn’t support working at the right granularity;
- the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the
      
directions github is taking.
    
 It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we
      
don’t like at any time.
    
 It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge;
- we can do much better than github (but don’t have enough time). We
      
should be using a P2P,
    
 bittorrent like system for version control.
      
github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all.
What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a
versioning
system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git.

With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods)
With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome
website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized.
Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another
versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in
the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning
system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to
something ideal.

I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a
wrong picture about it :)


    
  



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

drush66
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:51 AM, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:
I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it  from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited, meaning that if you commit in a directory of 100 mb of data, then you will get 100 mb per commit, will take you only 10 commits for 1 GB. All that assuming that that data is tracked by your git repo (git add). 


that is plainly wrong understanding of how git works.

davorin rusevljan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

Sergi Reyner
In reply to this post by kilon.alios


El 06/11/2013 10:52, "kilon alios" <[hidden email]> escribió:
>
> I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it  from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited,

Not at all. Simply put, git works in terms of diffs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I would rather pay for Smalltalkhub than use Github for free.

kilon.alios
Probably I mixed things up, or I remember incorrectly, my apologies. 


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Sergi Reyner <[hidden email]> wrote:


El 06/11/2013 10:52, "kilon alios" <[hidden email]> escribió:


>
> I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it  from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited,

Not at all. Simply put, git works in terms of diffs.


12