Hi guys
May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned with making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. WE want to invent and build OUR future. We are spending a lot of time on making the system better. - Fuel - Athens - OPAL - Ghost - Nautilus - Ring - NativeBoost - Zinc - HUGE amount of fixes - Working on a core - Writing a lot of documentation (yes guys) to name a few. We are pushing like hell and getting there. We spent time building our vision and step by step building it. We are getting there. :) Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody make choices and is free. Stef |
Administrator
|
Can you clarify what exactly you are asking here Stef? Are you asking why people work on projects like CUIS and Spoon?
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Hi Stef,
Dne 24. 04. 2012 11:22, piše Stéphane Ducasse: > Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. > If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. > > You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody > make choices and is free. I see the point behind Cuis/Spoon discussion in a wish to avoid duplication efforts in Smalltalk community. A wish to hear from you a word, something like: "yes we will look in Cuis to see if we can reuse some ideas or even code". To express just a will to look at achievements of others would help here. I think this is what many of us wants to hear. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
>> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point.
>> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. >> >> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody >> make choices and is free. > > I see the point behind Cuis/Spoon discussion in a wish to avoid > duplication efforts in Smalltalk community. A wish to hear from you a > word, something like: "yes we will look in Cuis to see if we can reuse > some ideas or even code". To express just a will to look at achievements > of others would help here. I think this is what many of us wants to hear. Did you notice that we ***already*** harvested some of the CUIS items? Now it does not make sense to stay compatible for the sake of it. Look CUIS changes the class definition meta data and this is ok. Now nobody went to say to Juan that he should not … blablbalbalba Stef > Best regards > Janko > > > > -- > Janko Mivšek > Aida/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > |
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
That's a good point. I regularly see that Stef and others harvest
enhancements and fixes from Squeak and CUIS. Surely, the other way around is also true. We simply have to live with the fact that many forks exist, and each of them is maintained by a small set of people who put a lot of energy into their own system. And sometimes they will collaborate, and sometimes not. The community behind Pharo, shouldnt be required to always be aware of external enhancements. And vice-versa for the remaining forks. Fernando On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. >>> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. >>> >>> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody >>> make choices and is free. >> >> I see the point behind Cuis/Spoon discussion in a wish to avoid >> duplication efforts in Smalltalk community. A wish to hear from you a >> word, something like: "yes we will look in Cuis to see if we can reuse >> some ideas or even code". To express just a will to look at achievements >> of others would help here. I think this is what many of us wants to hear. > > Did you notice that we ***already*** harvested some of the CUIS items? > Now it does not make sense to stay compatible for the sake of it. > Look CUIS changes the class definition meta data and this is ok. Now nobody went to say > to Juan that he should not … blablbalbalba > > Stef > >> Best regards >> Janko >> >> >> >> -- >> Janko Mivšek >> Aida/Web >> Smalltalk Web Application Server >> http://www.aidaweb.si >> > > |
El 4/24/12 9:09 AM, "Fernando Olivero" <[hidden email]> escribió: > The community behind Pharo, shouldnt be required to always be aware of > external enhancements. And vice-versa for the remaining forks. > > Fernando Un libro sabio dice: Los hermanos sean unidos.... A wise book says: The brothers are united... Or Pharo is not descendent of ...... Don't put name here for not irritate people Edgar |
Want X run on Y?
Do it. Port it, implement it. Why asking or blaming someone for not paying attention to your needs if you can do it yourself? I find this approach strange. Do original authors of pharo/cuis/whatever owe you something? -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko. |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
Hey, Steph!
Thanks! :-) On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi guys > > May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? > If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. > > We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned with > making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. > WE want to invent and build OUR future. |
In reply to this post by Stéphane Ducasse
I see the "point" of Cuis as to have a small, clean, understandable
Smalltalk system. It's a *general-purpose* system rather than one geared solely towards business. Pharo, at least to me, feels more like the Java ecosystem -- a platform aiming primarily toward business and generating plenty of marketing "buzz" with frameworks-of-the-month (such as the ones you listed). In Cuis, Smalltalk _is_ the framework and users are expected to build on that directly. In my view, Spoon is about letting the machine generate a small, vertical system from a larger, horizontal system. Pavel, Edgar and you all have been working on making a smaller system for years (good work); but I see the dream of Spoon as delegating that work to the machine, which will do it quickly and accurately. The question at the moment is whether that dream will be realized. Based on Craig's Squeak-Board candidacy announcement, I expect 2012 to be the year Spoon is born into mainstream-use at least in the Squeak community. On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi guys > > May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? > If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. > > We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned with > making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. > WE want to invent and build OUR future. > > We are spending a lot of time on making the system better. > - Fuel > - Athens > - OPAL > - Ghost > - Nautilus > - Ring > - NativeBoost > - Zinc > - HUGE amount of fixes > - Working on a core > - Writing a lot of documentation (yes guys) > to name a few. We are pushing like hell and getting there. > > We spent time building our vision and step by step building it. We are getting there. :) > Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. > If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. > > You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody > make choices and is free. > > Stef > > > |
Hi Chris,
the planed changes in Pharo are not autotelic but in most cases they are replacements of current buggy and unmaintainable subsytems. We also use automatic or semiautomatic tools for shrinking and modularization of the image. For example uMorphic is generated moslty automatically with subsequent hand-made cleanup. The original Squeak KernelImage was generated in the similar way. But we use the results of this tools only as the supporting experimental sources of information. The goals of Cuis, Spoon and Pharo are very very similar. Everyone wants to have the "small, clean, understandable Smalltalk system". But Pharo development is more evolutional and modularity is more valuable than small size. In Smalltalk it is easy to dive into the system and create something like Cuis, Spoon or KernelImage. But this projects were created by a single person and the degree of adoption of this forks is low. You may for example to take the current PharoKernel and withing few days to create a perfect small and clean kernel. It is cool intelectual adventure but to make it generally used stuff is another story. -- Pavel On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: > I see the "point" of Cuis as to have a small, clean, understandable > Smalltalk system. It's a *general-purpose* system rather than one > geared solely towards business. Pharo, at least to me, feels more > like the Java ecosystem -- a platform aiming primarily toward business > and generating plenty of marketing "buzz" with frameworks-of-the-month > (such as the ones you listed). In Cuis, Smalltalk _is_ the framework > and users are expected to build on that directly. > > In my view, Spoon is about letting the machine generate a small, > vertical system from a larger, horizontal system. Pavel, Edgar and > you all have been working on making a smaller system for years (good > work); but I see the dream of Spoon as delegating that work to the > machine, which will do it quickly and accurately. The question at the > moment is whether that dream will be realized. Based on Craig's > Squeak-Board candidacy announcement, I expect 2012 to be the year > Spoon is born into mainstream-use at least in the Squeak community. > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi guys >> >> May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? >> If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. >> >> We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned with >> making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. >> WE want to invent and build OUR future. >> >> We are spending a lot of time on making the system better. >> - Fuel >> - Athens >> - OPAL >> - Ghost >> - Nautilus >> - Ring >> - NativeBoost >> - Zinc >> - HUGE amount of fixes >> - Working on a core >> - Writing a lot of documentation (yes guys) >> to name a few. We are pushing like hell and getting there. >> >> We spent time building our vision and step by step building it. We are getting there. :) >> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. >> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. >> >> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody >> make choices and is free. >> >> Stef >> >> >> > |
Well said!
Norbert Am 26.04.2012 um 10:19 schrieb Pavel Krivanek: > Hi Chris, > > the planed changes in Pharo are not autotelic but in most cases they > are replacements of current buggy and unmaintainable subsytems. > We also use automatic or semiautomatic tools for shrinking and > modularization of the image. For example uMorphic is generated moslty > automatically with subsequent hand-made cleanup. The original Squeak > KernelImage was generated in the similar way. But we use the results > of this tools only as the supporting experimental sources of > information. > The goals of Cuis, Spoon and Pharo are very very similar. Everyone > wants to have the "small, clean, understandable Smalltalk system". But > Pharo development is more evolutional and modularity is more valuable > than small size. > In Smalltalk it is easy to dive into the system and create something > like Cuis, Spoon or KernelImage. But this projects were created by a > single person and the degree of adoption of this forks is low. You may > for example to take the current PharoKernel and withing few days to > create a perfect small and clean kernel. It is cool intelectual > adventure but to make it generally used stuff is another story. > > -- Pavel > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I see the "point" of Cuis as to have a small, clean, understandable >> Smalltalk system. It's a *general-purpose* system rather than one >> geared solely towards business. Pharo, at least to me, feels more >> like the Java ecosystem -- a platform aiming primarily toward business >> and generating plenty of marketing "buzz" with frameworks-of-the-month >> (such as the ones you listed). In Cuis, Smalltalk _is_ the framework >> and users are expected to build on that directly. >> >> In my view, Spoon is about letting the machine generate a small, >> vertical system from a larger, horizontal system. Pavel, Edgar and >> you all have been working on making a smaller system for years (good >> work); but I see the dream of Spoon as delegating that work to the >> machine, which will do it quickly and accurately. The question at the >> moment is whether that dream will be realized. Based on Craig's >> Squeak-Board candidacy announcement, I expect 2012 to be the year >> Spoon is born into mainstream-use at least in the Squeak community. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi guys >>> >>> May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? >>> If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. >>> >>> We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned with >>> making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. >>> WE want to invent and build OUR future. >>> >>> We are spending a lot of time on making the system better. >>> - Fuel >>> - Athens >>> - OPAL >>> - Ghost >>> - Nautilus >>> - Ring >>> - NativeBoost >>> - Zinc >>> - HUGE amount of fixes >>> - Working on a core >>> - Writing a lot of documentation (yes guys) >>> to name a few. We are pushing like hell and getting there. >>> >>> We spent time building our vision and step by step building it. We are getting there. :) >>> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. >>> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. >>> >>> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody >>> make choices and is free. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >> > |
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
+100
Thanks for putting it so clearly, Pavel. On 26 Apr 2012, at 10:19, Pavel Krivanek wrote: > Hi Chris, > > the planed changes in Pharo are not autotelic but in most cases they > are replacements of current buggy and unmaintainable subsytems. > We also use automatic or semiautomatic tools for shrinking and > modularization of the image. For example uMorphic is generated moslty > automatically with subsequent hand-made cleanup. The original Squeak > KernelImage was generated in the similar way. But we use the results > of this tools only as the supporting experimental sources of > information. > The goals of Cuis, Spoon and Pharo are very very similar. Everyone > wants to have the "small, clean, understandable Smalltalk system". But > Pharo development is more evolutional and modularity is more valuable > than small size. > In Smalltalk it is easy to dive into the system and create something > like Cuis, Spoon or KernelImage. But this projects were created by a > single person and the degree of adoption of this forks is low. You may > for example to take the current PharoKernel and withing few days to > create a perfect small and clean kernel. It is cool intelectual > adventure but to make it generally used stuff is another story. > > -- Pavel > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I see the "point" of Cuis as to have a small, clean, understandable >> Smalltalk system. It's a *general-purpose* system rather than one >> geared solely towards business. Pharo, at least to me, feels more >> like the Java ecosystem -- a platform aiming primarily toward business >> and generating plenty of marketing "buzz" with frameworks-of-the-month >> (such as the ones you listed). In Cuis, Smalltalk _is_ the framework >> and users are expected to build on that directly. >> >> In my view, Spoon is about letting the machine generate a small, >> vertical system from a larger, horizontal system. Pavel, Edgar and >> you all have been working on making a smaller system for years (good >> work); but I see the dream of Spoon as delegating that work to the >> machine, which will do it quickly and accurately. The question at the >> moment is whether that dream will be realized. Based on Craig's >> Squeak-Board candidacy announcement, I expect 2012 to be the year >> Spoon is born into mainstream-use at least in the Squeak community. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi guys >>> >>> May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? >>> If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. >>> >>> We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned with >>> making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. >>> WE want to invent and build OUR future. >>> >>> We are spending a lot of time on making the system better. >>> - Fuel >>> - Athens >>> - OPAL >>> - Ghost >>> - Nautilus >>> - Ring >>> - NativeBoost >>> - Zinc >>> - HUGE amount of fixes >>> - Working on a core >>> - Writing a lot of documentation (yes guys) >>> to name a few. We are pushing like hell and getting there. >>> >>> We spent time building our vision and step by step building it. We are getting there. :) >>> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand what is the point. >>> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on that for our future. >>> >>> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your future. Everybody >>> make choices and is free. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >> > |
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
El 4/26/12 5:19 AM, "Pavel Krivanek" <[hidden email]> escribió: > Hi Chris, > > the planed changes in Pharo are not autotelic but in most cases they > are replacements of current buggy and unmaintainable subsytems. > We also use automatic or semiautomatic tools for shrinking and > modularization of the image. For example uMorphic is generated moslty > automatically with subsequent hand-made cleanup. The original Squeak > KernelImage was generated in the similar way. But we use the results > of this tools only as the supporting experimental sources of > information. > The goals of Cuis, Spoon and Pharo are very very similar. Everyone > wants to have the "small, clean, understandable Smalltalk system". But > Pharo development is more evolutional and modularity is more valuable > than small size. > In Smalltalk it is easy to dive into the system and create something > like Cuis, Spoon or KernelImage. But this projects were created by a > single person and the degree of adoption of this forks is low. You may > for example to take the current PharoKernel and withing few days to > create a perfect small and clean kernel. It is cool intelectual > adventure but to make it generally used stuff is another story. > > -- Pavel Again i ask to fellows on all forks adopt the great work of years from Pavel. We should not waste valuable time and instead take PharoKernel and build our beloved pet on top of it. Edgar |
Am 26.04.2012 um 14:05 schrieb Edgar De Cleene: > > > > El 4/26/12 5:19 AM, "Pavel Krivanek" <[hidden email]> escribió: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> the planed changes in Pharo are not autotelic but in most cases they >> are replacements of current buggy and unmaintainable subsytems. >> We also use automatic or semiautomatic tools for shrinking and >> modularization of the image. For example uMorphic is generated moslty >> automatically with subsequent hand-made cleanup. The original Squeak >> KernelImage was generated in the similar way. But we use the results >> of this tools only as the supporting experimental sources of >> information. >> The goals of Cuis, Spoon and Pharo are very very similar. Everyone >> wants to have the "small, clean, understandable Smalltalk system". But >> Pharo development is more evolutional and modularity is more valuable >> than small size. >> In Smalltalk it is easy to dive into the system and create something >> like Cuis, Spoon or KernelImage. But this projects were created by a >> single person and the degree of adoption of this forks is low. You may >> for example to take the current PharoKernel and withing few days to >> create a perfect small and clean kernel. It is cool intelectual >> adventure but to make it generally used stuff is another story. >> >> -- Pavel > > > Again i ask to fellows on all forks adopt the great work of years from > Pavel. > We should not waste valuable time and instead take PharoKernel and build our > beloved pet on top of it. > Norbert |
In reply to this post by Fernando olivero-2
On 4/24/12, Fernando Olivero <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's a good point. I regularly see that Stef and others harvest > enhancements and fixes from Squeak and CUIS. Surely, the other way > around is also true. > > We simply have to live with the fact that many forks exist, and each > of them is maintained by a small set of people who put a lot of energy > into their own system. Yes. > And sometimes they will collaborate, and sometimes not. And this is possible because all is under the MIT license. > The community behind Pharo, shouldnt be required to always be aware of > external enhancements. And vice-versa for the remaining forks. Yes. --Hannes > Fernando > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stéphane Ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not >>>> understand what is the point. >>>> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on >>>> that for our future. >>>> >>>> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and >>>> your future. Everybody >>>> make choices and is free. >>> >>> I see the point behind Cuis/Spoon discussion in a wish to avoid >>> duplication efforts in Smalltalk community. A wish to hear from you a >>> word, something like: "yes we will look in Cuis to see if we can reuse >>> some ideas or even code". To express just a will to look at achievements >>> of others would help here. I think this is what many of us wants to hear. >> >> Did you notice that we ***already*** harvested some of the CUIS items? >> Now it does not make sense to stay compatible for the sake of it. >> Look CUIS changes the class definition meta data and this is ok. Now >> nobody went to say >> to Juan that he should not … blablbalbalba >> >> Stef >> >>> Best regards >>> Janko >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Janko Mivšek >>> Aida/Web >>> Smalltalk Web Application Server >>> http://www.aidaweb.si >>> >> >> > > |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Pavel Krivanek-3
Yes this is the key! It's not "let's build all these great frameworks on top of the system", but "we need a clean, beautiful system that people can use and explore and build on without tearing their hair out in frustration" [1] and some of the components are so messy that the only clear path forward is replacement. This is not a criticism of Squeak. Many parts of Squeak (and Squeak itself was intended as just a "tool to think" about the next evolution) were spikes, not real implementations but experiments. So the usual advice that it's better to clean than to rewrite does not apply. Proofs of concept are meant to be thrown away! Each of these components brings us closer to a clean, beautiful, Smalltalk-inspired system "and users are expected to build on that directly". The Smalltalk-inspired part is crucial also. Until I got that, I was plagued by questions of interoperability and backward-compatibility (which are obviously still nice, but subordinate to evolution). I see Squeak and Pharo's goals aligning more and more and, sure, it is frustrating to duplicate efforts. Although, maybe we'd all be complacent without the friendly rivalry. As the Zen master said, "we'll see..." [2] [1] I can't imagine someone putting FileDirectory and friends through serious use and not praying for something like Filesystem. And a programming environment without built-in support for https?? Zodiac is a fundamental piece of the system. These things are not "buzz", but core components that let us get back to work and play, instead of beating our heads against soul-crushing constructs like "FileDirectory extensionFor: file name" instead of "file extension" [2] A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how wonderful.” But a Zen master who lives in the village says, “We'll see.” 'The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, “Oh how awful.” The Zen master says, “We'll see.” The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, “Oh, how wonderful.” The Zen master says, “We'll see.” Cheers, Sean
Cheers,
Sean |
On 26-04-2012 11:31, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
> > Yes this is the key! It's not "let's build all these great frameworks on top > of the system", but "we need a clean, beautiful system that people can use > and explore and build on without tearing their hair out in frustration" [1] > and some of the components are so messy that the only clear path forward is > replacement. This is not a criticism of Squeak. Many parts of Squeak (and > Squeak itself was intended as just a "tool to think" about the next > evolution) were spikes, not real implementations but experiments. So the > usual advice that it's better to clean than to rewrite does not apply. > Proofs of concept are meant to be thrown away! Particularly they didn't have the idea of core system and foundation classes and that lead to a development model that depended on non orthogonal stuff (meaning: at some point it got difficult to insulate causes of trouble and fixing one thing lead to problems in other things). Situation was further complicated by the fact that sometimes problems found in certain areas were "solved" by building new packages to deal with them and these new packages should live side by side with old ones. In terms of maintenance it is pretty like hell. The efforts of generating minimal images (cores) are extremely healthy: to do so it is necessary to eliminate much undesired inter-dependencies. Besides people are minding about the real necessity of having different things to deal with the same stuff (like file and directory management). Another aspect of it is that people are enhancing code where possible or just replacing things that are fubar. I guess that one thing for immediate future of an open source "industry grade" smalltalk is to define foundation classes to deal with core functionality (file and directory management, (inter)networking, multimedia, interfacing with OS, user interface (including seamless use of full screen display and OpenGL), etc, etc, etc. IMO, interfacing with OS and foreign libraries is something that must be seen "with love" because FFI is not well behaved and as VMs were designed for past generation x86-32bit (mono-core single-thread) architectures. There is a lot to do in terms of porting things to the new 64bit multi-core multi-thread hardware architectures. I remember that around 2010 there were hot discussions about having multi-core multi-thread support in VM but now things are quite silent. Also, the last things I saw about 64bit images date from 2010. > > Each of these components brings us closer to a clean, beautiful, > Smalltalk-inspired system "and users are expected to build on that > directly". The Smalltalk-inspired part is crucial also. Until I got that, I > was plagued by questions of interoperability and backward-compatibility > (which are obviously still nice, but subordinate to evolution). > > I see Squeak and Pharo's goals aligning more and more and, sure, it is > frustrating to duplicate efforts. Although, maybe we'd all be complacent > without the friendly rivalry. As the Zen master said, "we'll see..." [2] > > [1] I can't imagine someone putting FileDirectory and friends through > serious use and not praying for something like Filesystem. And a programming > environment without built-in support for https?? Zodiac is a fundamental > piece of the system. These things are not "buzz", but core components that > let us get back to work and play, instead of beating our heads against > soul-crushing constructs like "FileDirectory extensionFor: file name" > instead of "file extension" > > [2] A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village > says, “Oh how wonderful.” But a Zen master who lives in the village says, > “We'll see.” 'The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in > the village says, “Oh how awful.” The Zen master says, “We'll see.” The > village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, > because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, “Oh, how > wonderful.” The Zen master says, “We'll see.” > > Cheers, > Sean > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-and-the-rest-of-the-ecosystem-tp4582839p4590003.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > CdAB signature.asc (270 bytes) Download Attachment |
On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote: > I guess that one thing for immediate future of an open source "industry > grade" smalltalk is to define foundation classes to deal with core > functionality (file and directory management, (inter)networking, > multimedia, interfacing with OS, user interface (including seamless use > of full screen display and OpenGL), etc, etc, etc. I hope to start to work on RestrictedSmalltalk once we got the bootstrap up and running. RestrictedSmalltalk should be closer to Smalltalk than RestrictedPython is from Python :) but I like the idea that we can understand what is really needed for the core and in particular from the reflective features. Stef |
Am 27.04.2012 um 00:12 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse: > > On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote: > >> I guess that one thing for immediate future of an open source "industry >> grade" smalltalk is to define foundation classes to deal with core >> functionality (file and directory management, (inter)networking, >> multimedia, interfacing with OS, user interface (including seamless use >> of full screen display and OpenGL), etc, etc, etc. > > I hope to start to work on RestrictedSmalltalk once we got the bootstrap up and running. > RestrictedSmalltalk should be closer to Smalltalk than RestrictedPython is from Python :) > but I like the idea that we can understand what is really needed for the core and in particular > from the reflective features. > A good sparring-partner will be Craig I think. The last weekend he showed a list of classes and methods that he thinks are essential to do anything useful. A good startpoint for arguing. Norbert |
In reply to this post by Chris Muller-3
On 4/25/12, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I see the "point" of Cuis as to have a small, clean, understandable > Smalltalk system. Which is useful for learning... It's a *general-purpose* system rather than one > geared solely towards business. Pharo, at least to me, feels more > like the Java ecosystem -- a platform aiming primarily toward business > and generating plenty of marketing "buzz" with frameworks-of-the-month > (such as the ones you listed). And marketing is important as well. Because the general culture of using programming languages is full of it and there is the notion that languages have to be developed and every two or three years there should be something new. In Cuis, Smalltalk _is_ the framework > and users are expected to build on that directly. Good to spell this out again Smalltalk _is_ the framework However we might need more illustrations for this. --Hannes > In my view, Spoon is about letting the machine generate a small, > vertical system from a larger, horizontal system. Pavel, Edgar and > you all have been working on making a smaller system for years (good > work); but I see the dream of Spoon as delegating that work to the > machine, which will do it quickly and accurately. The question at the > moment is whether that dream will be realized. Based on Craig's > Squeak-Board candidacy announcement, I expect 2012 to be the year > Spoon is born into mainstream-use at least in the Squeak community. > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Stéphane Ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi guys >> >> May I ask you why you talk about CUIS and Spoon/Pharo? >> If you want to work with these systems we do not have any problems. >> >> We are working on Pharo since 2008. We deliver regularly, we are concerned >> with >> making sure that you can do business with Pharo. And we will continue. >> WE want to invent and build OUR future. >> >> We are spending a lot of time on making the system better. >> - Fuel >> - Athens >> - OPAL >> - Ghost >> - Nautilus >> - Ring >> - NativeBoost >> - Zinc >> - HUGE amount of fixes >> - Working on a core >> - Writing a lot of documentation (yes guys) >> to name a few. We are pushing like hell and getting there. >> >> We spent time building our vision and step by step building it. We are >> getting there. :) >> Now I do not see the points related to spoon and cuis. I do not understand >> what is the point. >> If people wants to collaborate with us this is ok now we do not count on >> that for our future. >> >> You do not have to reply. Just think about what you want to build and your >> future. Everybody >> make choices and is free. >> >> Stef >> >> >> > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |