Making GUI'S
Locked
123
123
 
|
On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > > I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > all I installed last year, at the moment. > > I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place for > it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > session. One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any possibility in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to e.g. all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the end, this means we can not do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* things anymore. Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the dialects, and than stop doing anything. If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be compatible to VisualWorks", what would you take? And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" route, I guess. It makes no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny salaries) and than do boring stuff. That makes no sense. I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on interesting things is part of the overall compensation package of people in Research. Marcus -- Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de 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 |
Re: Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)
|
|
Hi Marcus,
I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay alone. I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like syntax and this is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make its syntax eternally useful and feature complete. Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here are a lot of opportunities to evolve. Best regards Janko P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. Marcus Denker pravi: > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > possibility > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > e.g. > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > end, this means we can not > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > things anymore. > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > dialects, and than > stop doing anything. > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > compatible to VisualWorks", > what would you take? > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > Marcus -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Wirts
Which I find funny because the one commercial grade swing app I did, I ended up building all that stuff because it was the only way I could see to get multiple views synced to the model without writing tons of glue code. Also, swing widgets don't like having null values as their data sources so the value models would keep them from throwing null pointer exceptions all the time.
On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Steve Wirts wrote: I did a talk(attached) at OOPSLA several years ago to explain the benefits of ValueModels to java programmers, it was way over their heads. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Cameron Sanders-3
On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Cameron Sanders wrote: > They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > > I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > all I installed last year, at the moment. not at all Smalltalk/X looks like VW. May be you tried MTSmalltalk > I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place for > it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > session. what is important for pharo is not to be backward compatible else we are dead. > > -Cam > > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Rudi Engelbrecht wrote: > >> Have you looked at Smalltalk/X? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Marcus Denker-3
+ 100000000 :)
I want to invent a reasonable future :) On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >> >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what >> all I installed last year, at the moment. >> >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >> for >> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >> session. > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > possibility > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > e.g. > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > end, this means we can not > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > things anymore. > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > dialects, and than > stop doing anything. > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > compatible to VisualWorks", > what would you take? > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > 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 |
Re: Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the > system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay > alone. > > I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty > compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. yes we will see. > I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like > syntax and this > is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make > its > syntax eternally useful and feature complete. exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting in addition. > Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the > fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here > are a lot of opportunities to evolve. We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk). I want a safer Smalltalk I want security concept cool sandbox cool module may be new concurrency model new compilers well modularised system fast loading I would love to have cool visibility mechanism pluggable type systems > Best regards > Janko > > P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while > other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. May be at the end we will fork again and create something for researcher only but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound evolution. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
Re: Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)
|
|
I think the UI Builder should not be in the scope of Pharo. A different
group could be constituted and build on their own effort and funding, providing "one-click experience" images for Pharo and (why not) Squeak. Take Seaside as a model to follow. -----Mensaje original----- De: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]En nombre de Stéphane Ducasse Enviado el: Sábado, 20 de Junio de 2009 04:52 p.m. Para: [hidden email] Asunto: Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S) On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the > system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay > alone. > > I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty > compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. yes we will see. > I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like > syntax and this > is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make > its > syntax eternally useful and feature complete. exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting in addition. > Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the > fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here > are a lot of opportunities to evolve. We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk). I want a safer Smalltalk I want security concept cool sandbox cool module may be new concurrency model new compilers well modularised system fast loading I would love to have cool visibility mechanism pluggable type systems > Best regards > Janko > > P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while > other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. May be at the end we will fork again and create something for researcher only but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound evolution. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 05:53 p.m. _______________________________________________ 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
amd cpu, 768mb ram (physical), win xp sp3, pharo 0.1 #10342
debug>space left... 7,259,612 bytes (internal) 265,688,060 bytes (phusical) 515,704,284 bytes (total) Please send me to a page showing how to inerpret this... Quick question is: how much memory my actual pharo vm is connsuming and when the "low space watcher" is going to start sending alerts? Regards, Carlos _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-3
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Denker<[hidden email]> wrote:
> > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. I like your argument ;-) -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/ _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
As i remember there are somithing called EasyMorphic. Maybe it could
adapted to Polymorph? On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 06:04, Serge Stinckwich<[hidden email]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Denker<[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >> route, I guess. It makes >> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >> That makes no sense. >> >> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >> interesting things is part of the >> overall compensation package of people in Research. > > I like your argument ;-) > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam > Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] > http://doesnotunderstand.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Carlos Crosetti-4
change the thread if you want to get an answer
On Jun 21, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Carlos Crosetti wrote: > amd cpu, 768mb ram (physical), win xp sp3, pharo 0.1 #10342 > > debug>space left... > 7,259,612 bytes (internal) > 265,688,060 bytes (phusical) > 515,704,284 bytes (total) > > Please send me to a page showing how to inerpret this... > Quick question is: how much memory my actual pharo vm is connsuming > and when > the "low space watcher" is going to start sending alerts? > > Regards, Carlos > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
I understand your point ... really! It has to be fun. ... I'm just
saying, it would be nice if simple classes could port over with no effort. oh ... never mind... ciao, cam On Jun 20, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the >> dialects, and than >> stop doing anything. _______________________________________________ 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 Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> + 100000000 :) > > I want to invent a reasonable future :) > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. And no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly in- appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for improvement we should not miss. And I hope you can see that the support for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. The beauty and the strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so hence the more harsh tone :) Norbert On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > > > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > > > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > >> > >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > >> all I installed last year, at the moment. > >> > >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place > >> for > >> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > >> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > >> session. > > > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > > possibility > > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > > e.g. > > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > > end, this means we can not > > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > > things anymore. > > > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > > dialects, and than > > stop doing anything. > > > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > > compatible to VisualWorks", > > what would you take? > > > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > > route, I guess. It makes > > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > > That makes no sense. > > > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > > interesting things is part of the > > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > > > Marcus > > > > -- > > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> + 100000000 :) >> >> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >> > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us > not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't > think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and > improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. > And > no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change > anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. Exact :) > This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use > such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. > So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly > in- > appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like > this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for > improvement we should not miss. totally true. > And I hope you can see that the support > for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. unfortunately > The beauty and the > strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. > > Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so > hence > the more harsh tone :) No problem, we are discussing :) Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible compatibility with X and Z. > > Norbert > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>> >>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>> >>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>> what >>>> all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>> for >>>> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >>>> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >>>> session. >>> >>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>> possibility >>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>> e.g. >>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>> end, this means we can not >>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>> things anymore. >>> >>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>> the >>> dialects, and than >>> stop doing anything. >>> >>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>> what would you take? >>> >>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>> route, I guess. It makes >>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>> That makes no sense. >>> >>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>> interesting things is part of the >>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> -- >>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 |
|
|
My 2 cents:
one of the ways to stay 'compatible' is become a de-facto standart because of high popularity :) 2009/6/21 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>: > > On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>> + 100000000 :) >>> >>> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >>> >> Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us >> not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't >> think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and >> improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. >> And >> no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change >> anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. > > Exact :) > >> This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use >> such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. >> So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly >> in- >> appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like >> this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for >> improvement we should not miss. > > totally true. > >> And I hope you can see that the support >> for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. > > unfortunately > >> The beauty and the >> strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. >> >> Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so >> hence >> the more harsh tone :) > > No problem, we are discussing :) > Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible > compatibility with X and Z. > > >> >> Norbert >> >> On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>>> >>>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>>> what >>>>> all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>>> for >>>>> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >>>>> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >>>>> session. >>>> >>>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>>> possibility >>>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>>> e.g. >>>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>>> end, this means we can not >>>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>>> things anymore. >>>> >>>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>>> the >>>> dialects, and than >>>> stop doing anything. >>>> >>>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>>> what would you take? >>>> >>>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>>> route, I guess. It makes >>>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>>> That makes no sense. >>>> >>>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>>> interesting things is part of the >>>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- 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 NorbertHartl
On 21.06.2009, at 06:27, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> + 100000000 :) >> >> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >> > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. I guess my mail was not about Pharo, but more about me... Marcus -- Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de 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 |
|
|
Don't worry :)
Stef On Jun 21, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On 21.06.2009, at 06:27, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>> + 100000000 :) >>> >>> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >>> >> Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. > > > I guess my mail was not about Pharo, but more about me... > > Marcus > > > -- > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > 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 Stéphane Ducasse
One of my interests is building highly scalable (web-based) software
applications. The advantage in using Smalltalk is that it has the nice possibility of being able to get (1) the wonderfully powerful development environment, (2) the incredible flexibility of the language and (3) *very* high performance deployment. In my opinion, Pharo is taking the right direction in the first two (getting proper closures finally into the Squak runtime is an example, as is the progress in refactoring and browsing, license cleaning, increased test coverage, etc.)... and adequate performance for many situations. For the very high performance need, Strongtalk looks like a very interesting platform to me, others may have their own preferences. For this to work there are two significant impediments: sharing code, and networking compatibility. Interestingly, Avi Bryant seems to have had his hand in addressing both (Monticello and Seaside compatibility modules). As Strongtalk seems to be a bit orphaned these days, I think a fruitful route would be to make the interfaces compatible with squeak/pharo, where possible. As for the overall question of compatibility, I think we should strive to have the lowest level infrastructure as compatible as possible, but lots of experimentation above that level. ../Dave _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
[hidden email] pravi:
> One of my interests is building highly scalable (web-based) software > applications. The advantage in using Smalltalk is that it has the nice > possibility of being able to get (1) the wonderfully powerful > development environment, (2) the incredible flexibility of the language > and (3) *very* high performance deployment. > > In my opinion, Pharo is taking the right direction in the first two > (getting proper closures finally into the Squak runtime is an example, > as is the progress in refactoring and browsing, license cleaning, > increased test coverage, etc.)... and adequate performance for many > situations. > > For the very high performance need, Strongtalk looks like a very > interesting platform to me, others may have their own preferences. All Squeak flavors bet on Eliot Miranda here and while knowing him for a long time, I'm confident that this is the right bet. This way we will get a really good and *maintainable* VM, which Strongtalk (being written in a lot of C code) is obviously not. The current goal is at least the speed of VisualWorks, that's 10 times faster than current Squeak VM. That's not that bad and from my experience more than enough for majority of our needs. Remember, performance problems in most systems lies in relational DB level, so let one optimize there first. By getting rid of RDB in that layer, if someone ask me... > For > this to work there are two significant impediments: sharing code, and > networking compatibility. Interestingly, Avi Bryant seems to have had > his hand in addressing both (Monticello and Seaside compatibility > modules). As Strongtalk seems to be a bit orphaned these days, I think > a fruitful route would be to make the interfaces compatible with > squeak/pharo, where possible. > > As for the overall question of compatibility, I think we should strive > to have the lowest level infrastructure as compatible as possible, but > lots of experimentation above that level. > > ../Dave -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project |
|
|
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
Norbert,
There were many reasons to fork from Squeak, and the improvements in Pharo would not have been possible any other way. I share your frustration at the lack of compatibility between dialects. Necessity being the mother of invention (and in this case the motiviation for same), I have started chipping away at the problem between Dolphin and Pharo. So far, it is little more than a collection of facades and helper methods that should reduce the hassles of getting my Dolphin code to run on Pharo. When that is all that is required, I think we should strive to make such layers available. Being different merely for its own sake buys us little. Bill -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Norbert Hartl Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:27 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > + 100000000 :) > > I want to invent a reasonable future :) > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. And no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly in- appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for improvement we should not miss. And I hope you can see that the support for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. The beauty and the strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so hence the more harsh tone :) Norbert On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > > > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > > > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > >> > >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check > >> what all I installed last year, at the moment. > >> > >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place > >> for it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it > >> into say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long > >> debugging session. > > > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > > possibility in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be > > compatible to e.g. > > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > > end, this means we can not do anything anymore, and, most > > importantly: we can not do any *fun* things anymore. > > > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all > > the dialects, and than stop doing anything. > > > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > > compatible to VisualWorks", what would you take? > > > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > > route, I guess. It makes > > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > > That makes no sense. > > > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > > interesting things is part of the overall compensation package of > > people in Research. > > > > Marcus > > > > -- > > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de 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 _______________________________________________ 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 |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |