|
|
Re:
FFI beginner question
Vince
Send Pharo-users mailing list submissions to
[hidden email]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[hidden email]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[hidden email]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Pharo-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. FFI beginner question (Richard O'Keefe)
2. Re: Code of Conduct (Richard O'Keefe)
3. Re: FFI beginner question (Brainstorms)
4. Re: Code of Conduct (Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas)
5. Re: Code of Conduct (Steve Quezadas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:56:50 +1200
From: "Richard O'Keefe" <[hidden email]>
To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question
Message-ID:
<CABcYAd+DggCnoSaQr+D54Hc5=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I am developing a Smalltalk interface to an existing C library which I
intend to make generally available. Naturally I am doing this in my own
Smalltalk system first, where it's unsurprisingly easy for me. But when
I have it working, I'd like to make a Pharo port available.
I have never used the Foreign Function Interface in Pharo before and
don't even know where to start.
What should I read first?
Is there a model project to imitate?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:40:46 +1200
From: "Richard O'Keefe" <[hidden email]>
To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
Message-ID:
<[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of
authoritarian vs libertarian.
And this is very relevant to the community.
It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority.
It's a question of vs ???????? vs goodspeak.
And this is very relevant to the community also.
Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it,
and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a
thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of
that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are
scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility,
that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be
amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that
is bad too.
Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were
confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been
addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned
that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find
that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able
to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for
removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your
code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off.
But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread
would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation
that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct
http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt
It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.
A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring
Erlang up.
http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html
is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
>
> I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.
>
>
> On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>
> This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
>
> If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
>>
>> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>
>> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>> > > The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>>> >
>>> > Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".
>>>
>>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
>>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
>>> that and invest time and effort accordingly.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Offray
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 19:41:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brainstorms <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] FFI beginner question
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm also interested in this...
Any plans to draft a Pharo booklet on this subject?
-Ted
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:37:19 -0500
From: Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I agreed that the last decision should be on the ones who made the bulk
of the work. But I don't see relationship between a code of conduct and
not being able to talk about code or contributions quality. Just looking
at the FAQ of the original CoC that originated the whole think, I see a
lot of answers about the stuff being said on this thread (minorities,
left wing progressive agenda, diminish of code quality because of it,
mixing tech with non-tech stuff), so I will refer to it, because as I
said, I think that the PR should be the place for the bulk of the
discussion:
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq
The FAQ name goes pretty well, considering the amount of repeated
arguments they deal with. I think that many of the FAQ apply for other
CoCs, despite of the possible different nature of CoC for the online
community and the CoC for other face to face events. BTW, Thanks for the
links, both provide a better context for the emergence of the CoC in the
Erlang community.
As said, I will try to see for specific contributions in the
correspondent PR in the repo, and made some if I have a one. For the
moment I'm trying to make my contributions on this thread, but is taking
a lot.
Cheers,
Offray
On 22/09/19 7:40 p.?m., Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of
> authoritarian vs libertarian.
> And this is very relevant to the community.
> It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority.
> It's a question of vs ???????? vs goodspeak.
> And this is very relevant to the community also.
>
> Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it,
> and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a
> thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
>
> That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability of
> that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people are
> scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by incivility,
> that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be
> amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and that
> is bad too.
>
> Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn: were
> confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been
> addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have learned
> that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where I find
> that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were able
> to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for
> removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read your
> code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all better off.
> But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the thread
> would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a generalisation
> that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
>
> I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct
> http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt
> It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for forgiveness.
>
> A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring
> Erlang up.
> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html
> is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones, is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
>>
>> I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code repository and the PR. See you there.
>>
>>
>> On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>
>> This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
>>
>> If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other sub, but it's offtopic here.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free, libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
>>>
>>> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>>
>>> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This should be a democracy.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
>>>>>> The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
>>>>> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to many".
>>>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
>>>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
>>>> that and invest time and effort accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Offray
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 20:14:26 -0700
From: Steve Quezadas <[hidden email]>
To: Any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Code of Conduct
Message-ID:
<CAJzdPQV0YZXWePmfJ_PNbmBZeWq_Ov-St1iG9h8hd4dx=9CN=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> But the low rate at which marginalized people are recruited, and
> the high rate at which they leave the industry
<https://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/>, point to a larger
> cultural and systemic problem.
Your interpreting this information with a SJW lens. Otherwise known as
"confirmation bias". Look at the low proportion of blacks and women who
apply for CS majors in college. Are you going to say that colleges are
using discriminatory practices to keep blacks and women from taking CS
classes? Maybe the bulk of the low recruitment statistics is simply due to
non-interest within that sub-culture.
I believe this CoC is a way to wedge left-wing politics in a non-political
maillist. I want it out.
On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:37 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agreed that the last decision should be on the ones who made the bulk
> of the work. But I don't see relationship between a code of conduct and
> not being able to talk about code or contributions quality. Just looking
> at the FAQ of the original CoC that originated the whole think, I see a
> lot of answers about the stuff being said on this thread (minorities,
> left wing progressive agenda, diminish of code quality because of it,
> mixing tech with non-tech stuff), so I will refer to it, because as I
> said, I think that the PR should be the place for the bulk of the
> discussion:
>
> https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq
>
> The FAQ name goes pretty well, considering the amount of repeated
> arguments they deal with. I think that many of the FAQ apply for other
> CoCs, despite of the possible different nature of CoC for the online
> community and the CoC for other face to face events. BTW, Thanks for the
> links, both provide a better context for the emergence of the CoC in the
> Erlang community.
>
> As said, I will try to see for specific contributions in the
> correspondent PR in the repo, and made some if I have a one. For the
> moment I'm trying to make my contributions on this thread, but is taking
> a lot.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Offray
>
> On 22/09/19 7:40 p. m., Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> > This is not a question of left vs right. It's a question of
> > authoritarian vs libertarian.
> > And this is very relevant to the community.
> > It's also not a question of democracy vs central authority.
> > It's a question of vs ???????? vs goodspeak.
> > And this is very relevant to the community also.
> >
> > Pharo is "owned" by the people who do the bulk of the work on it,
> > and they are kind enough to share it with us. That there is such a
> > thing as a *Pharo* community is the result of their work.
> >
> > That there is such a thing as a Pharo *community* depends on the ability
> of
> > that community to communicate freely. This cuts BOTH ways. If people
> are
> > scared off by incivility, that's bad. If people are driven away by
> incivility,
> > that's bad. But when you stop seeing rudeness as rudeness, which may be
> > amended, and start seeing it as crimethink, you drive people away, and
> that
> > is bad too.
> >
> > Let's consider a recent thread. I took the position that << and putOn:
> were
> > confusing, unreliable, and unnecessary. The unreliability issue has been
> > addressed in Pharo 8; had I not been able to speak I would never have
> learned
> > that. Some people apparently think that it improves readability, where
> I find
> > that << impairs my ability to understand. The fact that BOTH sides were
> able
> > to speak freely means that we now know (a) that there is no consensus for
> > removing them from the system and (b) if you want other people to read
> your
> > code you might want to think twice before using them, and we are all
> better off.
> > But if criticising someone's opinion were construed as harassment, the
> thread
> > would have been shut down before I displayed my code with a
> generalisation
> > that is worth having if << is worth having at all.
> >
> > I probably should have mentioned the Erlang code of conduct
> > http://erlang.org/download/erlang_org_code_of_conduct.txt
> > It is pretty a-political, has graduated response, and potential for
> forgiveness.
> >
> > A code of conduct for *events* is another matter, which is why I bring
> > Erlang up.
> > http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2015-March/083849.html
> > is eye-opening. (It's mainly about Ruby community issues.)
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 11:51, Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> My point was that this community, as a the big majority of FLOSS ones,
> is not a democracy and *not* having a democracy has shown its benefits in
> human endeavors like science, technology, hackerspaces and so on.
> >>
> >> I'll keep the rest of the conversation with you on the source code
> repository and the PR. See you there.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22/09/19 6:40 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> >>
> >> This isn't science, this is a community. We don't need a CoC, there
> haven't been any problems on this list regarding nazis or whatever. This is
> just a group of people trying to enforce their political ideologies on
> everyone else. Let's just remove the CoC altogether and just replace it
> with one line: "this maillist is about Pharo, anything else is offtopic".
> >>
> >> If you want to debate on the merits of Islam vs Christianity/ right vs
> left / thugs vs racists , you are free to hold your opinion on some other
> sub, but it's offtopic here.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> There is no data to support such supposed majority. But even so, free,
> libre, open source communities are not democracies. Imagine the quality of
> code or argumentation based on perceived majorities? If science would be a
> democracy, the earth would be "still" flat.
> >>>
> >>> On 22/09/19 6:04 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would say that the majority don't seem to be in favor of it. This
> should be a democracy.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Offray Vladimir Luna C?rdenas <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 22/09/19 3:38 p. m., Steve Quezadas wrote:
> >>>>>> The discussion so far shows that CoC is not a distraction to many
> >>>>> Actually, the discussion shows that the CoC is "a distraction to
> many".
> >>>> Actually it shows that some people consider it a distraction, others
> >>>> don't. I think that every body here is able to form its own opinion on
> >>>> that and invest time and effort accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Offray
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org/attachments/20190922/7e300678/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Pharo-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pharo.org/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users_lists.pharo.org
------------------------------
End of Pharo-users Digest, Vol 77, Issue 67
*******************************************
|
Locked
