Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

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

Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

Hannes Hirzel
On 5/6/18, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm working on a programing paradigm and IDE for the personal programmer
> who wants to control his or her IoT. The size of the target audience I
> have in mind is >100 million. I gave up Squeak long ago as a platform
> because they obsolete my code faster than I can write it.  I have now
> frozen Squeak 3.10.2 and hope its runtime will survive until I find a
> better foundation. My hope is that Pharo has a stable kernel that I can
> build on.

Hello Tryge

Good to see that you reconsider to use Smalltalk in 2018, this time Pharo.

Am I assuming correctly that you want to continue to work on your IDE
which the supports the DCI (Data-Context-Interaction) programming
style [1]? The IDE was called "BabyIDE" [2].

In 2015 you wrote to the Squeak mailing  list that you are abandoning
Squeak (Squeak 3.8, 4.5 or 4.6 at that time and Smalltalk as a whole)
in favour of JavaScript, a mainstream language. That you now at least
reconsider to use Smalltalk (Pharo) is an interesting result as it
reinforces the idea that doing things the Smalltalk way is more
promising than going for JavaScript directly [6].

As for loading the BabyIDE into Squeak: It is noteworthy that after 10
years (done around Squeak version 3.8) of maintaining a fork the
Squeakland (Etoys) image has been merged back into Squeak 6.0a trunk.
[5]

I could actually load some of your tools last year into Squeak 6.0a
with very modest fixes last year. [2].

It seems that splitting your IDE enhancements into different parts
which can be treated independently will probably help.

And in addition helpful would be  IMHO to write HOW you construct
these tools and WHY you do it. These will help people to maintain your
code even if the underlying system changes.

It seems worthwhile to try out how it goes with the most recent Squeak
version, Squeak 6.0a trunk [8].

Another option is to wait a few months and look for the bootstrap
version of Pharo 7.
All the code is in readable format on github and various types of
image files may be built  build from it [7].

And the third option is to check out if Cuis (the third Smalltalk
which runs on the OpenSmalltalk [3] VM) suits your needs. [4]


Kind regards

Hannes Hirzel


-------------------

[1] Data-Context-Interaction http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6048
[2] BabySRE http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2550
[3] http://www.opensmalltalk.org/
[4] Cuis Smalltalk
https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev ; there is a Cuis
mailing list.
[5] Etoys in 2017 http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6531
[6] Of course these days JavaScript cannot be avoided. But it is
preferable to generate it with a Smalltalk tool.
[7] The file format used in Pharo 7 is called Tonel (no exclamation marks!)
[8] Squeak 6.0a trunk download http://files.squeak.org/6.0alpha/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

Edgar J. De Cleene-3
I have a long list on my hands, but ask community for help Trygve  have his
BabyIDE or new tools he could have in Squeak again.


Edgar
@morplenauta



On 08/05/2018, 15:06, "H. Hirzel" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5/6/18, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm working on a
> programing paradigm and IDE for the personal programmer
> who wants to control
> his or her IoT. The size of the target audience I
> have in mind is >100
> million. I gave up Squeak long ago as a platform
> because they obsolete my
> code faster than I can write it.  I have now
> frozen Squeak 3.10.2 and hope
> its runtime will survive until I find a
> better foundation. My hope is that
> Pharo has a stable kernel that I can
> build on.

Hello Tryge

Good to see
> that you reconsider to use Smalltalk in 2018, this time Pharo.

Am I assuming
> correctly that you want to continue to work on your IDE
which the supports the
> DCI (Data-Context-Interaction) programming
style [1]? The IDE was called
> "BabyIDE" [2].

In 2015 you wrote to the Squeak mailing  list that you are
> abandoning
Squeak (Squeak 3.8, 4.5 or 4.6 at that time and Smalltalk as a
> whole)
in favour of JavaScript, a mainstream language. That you now at
> least
reconsider to use Smalltalk (Pharo) is an interesting result as
> it
reinforces the idea that doing things the Smalltalk way is more
promising
> than going for JavaScript directly [6].

As for loading the BabyIDE into
> Squeak: It is noteworthy that after 10
years (done around Squeak version 3.8)
> of maintaining a fork the
Squeakland (Etoys) image has been merged back into
> Squeak 6.0a trunk.
[5]

I could actually load some of your tools last year
> into Squeak 6.0a
with very modest fixes last year. [2].

It seems that
> splitting your IDE enhancements into different parts
which can be treated
> independently will probably help.

And in addition helpful would be  IMHO to
> write HOW you construct
these tools and WHY you do it. These will help people
> to maintain your
code even if the underlying system changes.

It seems
> worthwhile to try out how it goes with the most recent Squeak
version, Squeak
> 6.0a trunk [8].

Another option is to wait a few months and look for the
> bootstrap
version of Pharo 7.
All the code is in readable format on github and
> various types of
image files may be built  build from it [7].

And the third
> option is to check out if Cuis (the third Smalltalk
which runs on the
> OpenSmalltalk [3] VM) suits your needs. [4]


Kind regards

Hannes
> Hirzel


-------------------

[1] Data-Context-Interaction
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6048
[2] BabySRE
> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2550
[3] http://www.opensmalltalk.org/
[4] Cuis
> Smalltalk
https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev ; there is a
> Cuis
mailing list.
[5] Etoys in 2017 http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6531
[6] Of
> course these days JavaScript cannot be avoided. But it is
preferable to
> generate it with a Smalltalk tool.
[7] The file format used in Pharo 7 is
> called Tonel (no exclamation marks!)
[8] Squeak 6.0a trunk download
> http://files.squeak.org/6.0alpha/





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

Hannes Hirzel
In reply to this post by Hannes Hirzel
On 5/9/18, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Of course not. But one of my goals is that future dynabooks will be
> backwards compatible. Recent discussions have shown me that this goal is
> a research project.
> --Trygve

Indeed [1]. And a very interesting one!

Found and read your overview
http://folk.uio.no/trygver/themes/Personal/PP-NIK.pdf

And also the more elaborate draft of a description (50 pages) [2]

http://folk.uio.no/trygver/themes/Personal/pp-index.html
links to
http://folk.uio.no/trygver/themes/Personal/PersonalProgramming.233.zip


For my personal programming needs in Squeak so far I realized that the
'data' part is the easiest one to tackle in terms of backward
compatibility.

And some success in converting data to code forth and back to ease
compatibility. It would be nicer of course to have a homoiconic
notation [3] but still very doable. In particular as the new VMs have
lifted the size constraint for the source code of in methods.

--Hannes


[1] An example is about the work involved to get a 17 year old
'Dynamic essay' from Squeak 3.2 to read in properly into a Squeak 6.0a
trunk image

http://forum.world.st/Dynamic-essay-project-MorphLayoutArticle-on-Bob-s-SuperSwiki-tc5075374.html

Quite some effort and not a full result yet...

Though Squeak has some mechanisms to update classes and objects.

In that thread Edgar de Cleene outlined  the idea of a recursive DNU
mechanism to check out earlier messages from the web

http://forum.world.st/Dynamic-essay-project-MorphLayoutArticle-on-Bob-s-SuperSwiki-tp5075374p5075625.html

Needs much more elaboration ...
-------------------
[2]  Abstract

Computer programming celebrates its platinum jubilee on the 21st of
June, 2018. Exactly 70 years ago, the world's first programmer wrote
the world's first program and then stored and executed it in the
world's first stored program computer; affectionately known as Baby.
The solitary Baby has morphed into billions of computers that are
loosely connected into a single, global machine. Baby's control panel
has morphed into graphical user interfaces (GUI) that empower
everybody to augment their intellect. The consequences are deeply
radical for individuals and society alike. A significant side effect
of the GUI is that the computer has faded into the background and the
user focuses on the immediate needs.

We present DCI, a new programming paradigm that targets structures of
communicating computers. Its goal is readable code that is so
intuitive that everybody can grok it and so comprehensive that expert
programmers will enjoy using it. DCI programming has been tested on
real-life problems. A set of controlled experiments showed that DCI
code is more readable than Java code.

A new programming environment, BabyIDE, targets the single, global
machine. Different GUIs support programmers having different mental
models depending on their interests and proficiency. An MVC system
architecture makes the program fade into the background and lets the
user concentrate on satisfying his or her immediate needs. My approach
is experimental. Smalltalk's universe of objects imitates the single,
global machine and is my proving ground.We give two examples: one for
experts and another for novices. A video1 illustrates the novice IDE.

Our approach is experimental. The universe of objects found in
Smalltalk's image imitates a computer network and is our proving
ground. Squeak 3.10.2 is our laboratory where we experiment with
various versions of BabyIDE.

A great deal of work remains to make BabyIDE generally available and
we are searching for a trailblazer who will take charge of it and take
it out into the world.

Keywords:
Personal Programming,
Novice Programming,
Single Global Machine,
IOT,
Smart Home,
MVC,
DCI,
BabyIDE,
Smalltalk,
Object Orientation

[3]
http://goran.krampe.se/2016/07/19/spry-is-a-smalltalk/


> On 09.05.2018 12:19, Marcus Denker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I go back to Alan Kay's vision of a Dynabook: A/personal/computer
>>>> for children of all ages. It should contain all its owner's
>>>> /personal/data, including  his or her/personal/programs, as they
>>>> evolve through the years.  Continuity is a must; the owner shall
>>>> never loose data.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you really expect that the dynabook will be 100% backward
>> compatible to Smalltalk-80?
>>
>> Marcus
>
> --
>
> /The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborateto achieve
> a goal. /
> Trygve Reenskaug mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:%[hidden email]>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
> N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info
> Norway                     Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

Chris Muller-3
In reply to this post by Hannes Hirzel
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:06 PM, H. Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 5/6/18, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'm working on a programing paradigm and IDE for the personal programmer
>> who wants to control his or her IoT. The size of the target audience I
>> have in mind is >100 million. I gave up Squeak long ago as a platform
>> because they obsolete my code faster than I can write it.

I've been able to keep Magma updated since at least Squeak 3.6 with
only a few minor tweaks needed since then, by making sure I did not
let it depend on low-level, implementation-specific things, something
you will also want to do if you want your IDE to live past one or two
Squeak (or Pharo) releases.

>>  I have now
>> frozen Squeak 3.10.2 and hope its runtime will survive until I find a
>> better foundation. My hope is that Pharo has a stable kernel that I can
>> build on.

Not trying to draw a comparison as much as make a clarification but...
if anything, Pharo is a less stable kernel than Squeaks in this area,
because Squeak's philosophy is one that cares about backward
compatibility while Pharo (in the past, at least) actually considers
backward compatibility an inhibition to progress.

Best wishes,
  Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

Hannes Hirzel
In reply to this post by Hannes Hirzel
Hello Trygve

I think you have written an excellent summary about the challenge
presented by object-oriented programming.

GOF book on Design Patterns

    …, it's clear that code won't reveal everything about how a system
will work. [ibid.p.23]

And the development of Pharo and Squeak the last 10..15 years
exemplifies  that this is indeed still a challenge though there are
some examples and ideas how to cope with it.

So is this a case for promoting DCI and related tools (which by itself
goes back 10 years)?

--Hannes

On 5/10/18, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At 87, I'm an old man. I'm told that I don't understand modern software,
> which is true. I use some programs daily: WIN7, Pharo, Thunderbird, ...
>  From time to time, I am told that a new version of the program that
> fixes bugs and improves security is available. Press the button to
> install it.  So I wonder: Is modern software out of control? Does
> /anybody /understand it, or is it so complicated that it is beyond human
> comprehension? Why didn't they get it right the first time? Most of us
> have the GOF book on Design Patterns on our bookshelf.  In the
> introduction, they write:
>
>     /An object-oriented program's runtime structure often bears little
>     resemblance to its code structure. The code structure is frozen at
>     compile-time; it consists of classes in fixed inheritance
>     relationships. The runtime structure consists of rapidly changing
>     networks of communicating objects.[GOF-95] p. 22./
>
>   and
>
>     /…, it's clear that code won't reveal everything about how a system
>     will work. [ibid.p.23]/
>
> Modern programmers are thus reduced to relying on testing the code. In
> the words of Edsger Dijstra:
>
>     /"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but
>     never to show their absence!"[REF] /
>
> Modern programmers know all this but accept it as an unavoidable part of
> progress. Some may have seen it as a challenge, but they are up against
> the enormous inertia of a community who haven't changed their
> fundamental model of programming since the advent of the von Neumann
> stored program computer in 1948.
>
> I can't resist another quote; this time from Tony Hoare's TuringAward
> lecture:
>
>     /“There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is
>     to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and
>     the other is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
>     deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult. …[Hoare-81]/
>
> In the lecture, Hoare was bemoaning his unsuccessful fight for
> simplicity. Developers, particularly committees  of developers, seem to
> love complexity for its own sake. I have never accepted that bugs are an
> unavoidable part of software.(See "2.    Get it Right the First Time"
> in the draft article). Bugs are parts of the facts of life but they are
> not an acceptable part of it. Ideally, my software should be /so simple
> that there are obviously no deficiencies. /One of my attempts at coming
> to grips with the problem is the DCI programming paradigm. Here, /the
> runtime structure of rapidly changing networks of communicating objects/
> is specified in explicit code that says (almost) everything about what
> happens at runtime. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Pharo were to become
> first to overcome the GOF limitation? I challenge you to play with
> BabyIDE on Squeak  and become convinced that it is a step in the right
> direction.
>
> I won't reread this message before I  send it. I suppose it's
> controversial and should probably delete some or all of it to avoid
> angry answers. Another reason why I probably shouldn't send it is that I
> do not have time to engage in a discussion. I /must /give priority to
> finishing my article on DCI and PP. (A ~50 page draft is on my home
> page; it will be updated from time to time)
>
> I press the SEND button with a shaking hand
> --Trygve
>
>
>
> On 09.05.2018 15:53, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>> ​I have a C++ program written in the late 80s by someone
>> else.  It used to run fine under cfront 2.0 and early g++.
>> Ten years after it was written it was impossible to compile.
>>
>> *Since* that there have been changes to streams and strings,
>> amongst other things.
>>
>> The 1989 C standard changed the semantics of mixed signed/unsigned
>> integer arithmetic.  It also inadvertently rendered illegal a
>> widely used technique.  It is notoriously the case these days
>> that compilers taking the C standards literally have "broken"
>> quite a lot of code that worked with less ambitious compilers.
>> I have been watching this phenomenon with considerable
>> nervousness.  See for example
>> http://www.eng.utah.edu/~cs5785/slides-f10/Dangerous+Optimizations.pdf
>> <http://www.eng.utah.edu/%7Ecs5785/slides-f10/Dangerous+Optimizations.pdf>
>>
>> I have certainly had previously acceptable C89 code be rejected
>> by compilers as not being legal C11.  It is true that compilers
>> tend to have command line/IDE switches to ask that old code be
>> compiled under old rules, but you cannot say that *in* the program.
>> There is no way to mark the language version, no
>>     #pragma stdc version iso99
>>
>>
>>
>> As for Java, I could rant about the floods of deprecation warnings
>> from old code.  I shall content myself with one observation.
>> Read http://java-performance.info/changes-to-string-java-1-7-0_06/
>> Before Java 1.7, the substring operation in Java took O(1) time
>> and space.  From Java 1.7 on, it takes time and space linear in the
>> size of the result.  The syntax and abstract semantics did not
>> change but the pragmatics did.  Code that had adequate performance
>> could suddenly start crawling.
>>
>> Oracle do a tolerably thorough job of describing compatibility
>> issues between JDK releases.  See for example
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/8-compatibility-guide-2156366.html#A999198
>> where we learned that the 'apt' tool was gone, the JDBC-ODBC bridge
>> was gone, 32-bit Solaris support (and yes, I was still using 32-bit
>> code in SPARC Solaris and Intel Solaris) was gone, and the type
>> inference algorithm had changed in a way that could break things.
>> I am still somewhat peeved about some of the rewriting I've had to
>> do over the last several releases.
>>
>> Then there is the simple fact that porting code from one release of
>> an OS to another can be a pain.  Solaris 10 to OpenSolaris was easy.
>> OpenSolaris to Solaris 11 was not as painless.  Solaris 11 to
>> OpenIndiana was not a happy time for me.  OpenBSD changes forced
>> rework.  I'd finally got my program to port smoothly between Solaris,
>> Darwin, and Linux.  And then I had trouble porting to the next major
>> release of Linux.  And with Ubuntu 17, I've got another problem I
>> still haven't tracked down.  All of this in a C program that gets
>> regularly (sp)linted and checked all sorts of ways, written with
>> the intention of producing portable code.
>>
>> EVERYTHING BREAKS.
>>
>>
>> On 7 May 2018 at 22:42, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Please tell me when Java, C, C++, etc programs stopped working
>>     because their runtime systems had changed.
>>     Please tell me when Java, C, C++, etc compilers stopped compiling
>>     old code because the languages had changed.
>>
>>
>>     On 07.05.2018 11:57, Norbert Hartl wrote:
>>>     I understand what you are saying but it contains some
>>>     misconceptions about the modern software world.
>>>
>>>     „The earth is not stopping to turn just because you want to stay
>>>     on the sunny side“
>>>
>>>     There is two funny concepts going on in the modern software
>>>     industry. The one tells you that because you want to do a product
>>>     everything else around you should come to a full stop so can
>>>     comfortably build your software not disturbed by other things.
>>>     The second one tells you that you _have to upgrade_ … there is
>>>     this magical force preventing you from staying where you are.
>>>     Both notions are funny alone but they come combined and then they
>>>     turn out to be a non-sensical monster.
>>>
>>>     Let’s take a different approach. Put in everything you say about
>>>     software, libraries, etc the word version. So you can build upon
>>>     Pharo version 3 your own product. You can stay at that version
>>>     and it won’t change. If the software you sell is not 80% pharo
>>>     but your own you should not have a problem just to stay on that
>>>     version because you develop your own stuff. But still the world
>>>     did not stop turning and there is pharo 4. You decide there are a
>>>     few nice features but the work to adjust is too big to take the
>>>     risk. Then there is pharo 5 and you … nahhh not this time….Then
>>>     there is pharo6 and they not only changed the image but also the
>>>     way source code is managed. That prevents you further from
>>>     adjusting. But hey you can still be happy with pharo3 and it does
>>>     not change.
>>>
>>>     So what is the real problem? Yes, money/time is not enough. I
>>>     think there are a lot of people risking their health to promote
>>>     pharo and now we have a consortium that can pay engineers to do
>>>     work on pharo. So let me tell you a future story:
>>>
>>>     You see what pharo is doing and you think it is good. You can
>>>     also see that there are too less resources to proceed in the way
>>>     you need it to go. So you decide to show pharo to the world
>>>     inspiring people with some kind of a vision. The result is that
>>>     more people pay into the consortium and we hire more engineers.
>>>     And then one day the consortium has enough money to pay engineers
>>>     that can care about a LTS (long term support) version of pharo.
>>>     So you can stay on pharo version 3 and still get those annoying
>>>     bugs fixed. And hey this team has also enough time to provide you
>>>     with tools that make a migration to pharo version 4 more easy and
>>>     less annoying for you. And then you have your own product based
>>>     on pharo version 4. And then for version 5, version 6,…. Sounds
>>>     like a dream…but hey…it is indeed realistic. It just depends on
>>>     how the people approach it
>>>
>>>     How does this sound?
>>>
>>>     Norbert
>>>
>>>>     Am 07.05.2018 um 11:31 schrieb Trygve Reenskaug
>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks for your quick answer.  I have only a fleeting knowledge
>>>>     of Pharo but liked what I saw. The Squeak class library has seen
>>>>     organic growth since 1978 or earlier. Pharo gave it a thorough
>>>>     overhaul. At the Pharo kernel was a minimal image with a minimal
>>>>     class library. The rest of the functionality was partitioned
>>>>     into packages that could be added to the kernel image as
>>>>     required. Beautiful. But only my dream?
>>>>
>>>>         /Matthew 7:24-27: And the rain fell, and the floods came,
>>>>         and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not
>>>>         fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone
>>>>         who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be
>>>>         like a foolish man who built his house on the sand."/
>>>>
>>>>     I am developing an IDE for non-programmers called BabyIDE, a
>>>>     non-intrusive extension of Squeak. Where the Class Browser in
>>>>     Squeak is used to work with one class at the time, the BabyIDE
>>>>     browser is used to work with structures of collaborating
>>>>     objects, ignoring their classes. I would like to develop a
>>>>     BabyIDE image that gets broad usage and long life. I'm looking
>>>>     for a rock to build on and hoped it could be what I thought was
>>>>     the Pharo kernel+ a few selected packages. In your answer, I
>>>>     read that if I build BabyIDE on Pharo, I will be building on sand.
>>>>
>>>>     pharo.org <http://pharo.org/>writes: "/Pharo is a pure
>>>>     object-oriented programming language.../". The only language I
>>>>     can see is defined by the release image. A Pharo programmer
>>>>     builds application programs in this language. He or she can add
>>>>     new classes, change existing ones, subclass them, add or change
>>>>     methods, change the Smalltalk dictionary, etc. etc.  An
>>>>     extremely flexible and powerful language.
>>>>
>>>>     A tale from the future when Pharo is a mainstream
>>>>     language:Business customers benefit from end users using
>>>>     applications that are written by Pharo programmers who built on
>>>>     the Pharo language and environment that had been developed by
>>>>     the Pharo community. One day there is a happy announcement: A
>>>>     new version of Pharo will be launched tomorrow. It is truly cool
>>>>     and includes any number of improvements, some of them
>>>>     documented. And, by the way, applications written in the current
>>>>     Pharo will no longer work. So please inform your customers that
>>>>     you will not be able to serve them for a while. We are confident
>>>>     that all your application programmers will be happy to drop
>>>>     whatever they are doing in order to adapt their applications to
>>>>     the new Pharo so that you can start serving your customers again.
>>>>
>>>>     Cheers
>>>>     --Trygve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 06.05.2018 13:00, Norbert Hartl wrote:
>>>>>     Can you elaborate on what you consider as a kernel? There are
>>>>>     always things moving in the pharo world. The last years the
>>>>>     virtual machine got some iterations and it is still not fully
>>>>>     stable. For pharo it is hard to have it stable because we feel
>>>>>     the need that a lot of the existing parts need to be replaced
>>>>>     to be useful in these times. Furthermore pharo is also
>>>>>     prototyping platform for programming language features. All of
>>>>>     these are counter-stability measures. So if you need a stable
>>>>>     kernel from native ground up to UI pharo won‘t be that thing
>>>>>     you are looking for the coming years (if at all). You always
>>>>>     need to adopt to change so you need to define your required
>>>>>     scope better in order to get an estimate.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>     Am 06.05.2018 um 11:31 schrieb Trygve Reenskaug
>>>>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     I'm working on a programing paradigm and IDE for the personal
>>>>>>     programmer who wants to control his or her IoT. The size of
>>>>>>     the target audience I have in mind is >100 million. I gave up
>>>>>>     Squeak long ago as a platform because they obsolete my code
>>>>>>     faster than I can write it.  I have now frozen Squeak 3.10.2
>>>>>>     and hope its runtime will survive until I find a better
>>>>>>     foundation. My hope is that Pharo has a stable kernel that I
>>>>>>     can build on.  According to Stephan, this is not so. Is there
>>>>>>     any plan for creating a stable Pharo kernel that people can
>>>>>>     use for building software of lasting value for millions of
>>>>>>     non-expert users?
>>>>>>     --Thanks, Trygve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 05.05.2018 13:53, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
>>>>>>>     I’ve taken a look at what would be needed to
>>>>>>>     support magma on pharo a few years ago. Chris always told us he
>>>>>>> uses it
>>>>>>>     professionally on squeak and/*has not enough capacity to keep up
>>>>>>> with changes in pharo
>>>>>>>     without having a customer/maintainer for it.*/  Twice a year
>>>>>>>     or so someone asks about magma on pharo and takes a look. AFAIK
>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>     no real obstacles to a port, but magma uses a lot of deep
>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>     specifics that will take an experienced smalltalker to deal with,
>>>>>>> and a lot
>>>>>>>     of mailing list archeology as pharo changed a lot since magma
>>>>>>> worked on
>>>>>>>     pharo last
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Stephan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     --
>>>>>>     /The essence of object orientation is that
>>>>>>     objectscollaboratetoachieve a goal./
>>>>>>     TrygveReenskaug mailto: [hidden email]
>>>>>>     <mailto:%[hidden email]>
>>>>>>     Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
>>>>>>     <http://folk.uio.no/trygver/>
>>>>>>     N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info <http://fulloo.info/>
>>>>>>     Norway Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>>>>
>>>>     --
>>>>     /The essence of object orientation is that
>>>>     objectscollaboratetoachieve a goal./
>>>>     TrygveReenskaug mailto: [hidden email]
>>>>     <mailto:%[hidden email]>
>>>>     Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
>>>>     <http://folk.uio.no/trygver/>
>>>>     N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info <http://fulloo.info/>
>>>>     Norway Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>>>
>>
>>     --
>>
>>     /The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborateto
>>     achieve a goal. /
>>     Trygve Reenskaug mailto: [hidden email]
>>     <mailto:%[hidden email]>
>>     Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
>>     <http://folk.uio.no/trygver/>
>>     N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info <http://fullOO.info>
>>     Norway Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> /The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborateto achieve
> a goal. /
> Trygve Reenskaug mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:%[hidden email]>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
> N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info
> Norway                     Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Pharo-users] Personal Programming onPharo

Hannes Hirzel
In reply to this post by Hannes Hirzel
Hello Trygve

I am interested in an updated zip file of

     http://fulloo.info/Downloads/BabyIDE.zip     (Squeak 3.10)

Includes Squeak BabyIDE image and Win7-VM.

As you write a new Squeak version will come later.

--Hannes

On 5/10/18, Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Hannes,
> It's great that you consider spending time on BabyIDE. Porting BabyIDE
> to Pharo needs to be done sooner or later, but it may be harder to find
> somebody who will actually use the results.(BabyIDE was first released
> 10 years ago. AFAIK I am still the only user of the ST version.)
>
> A plan for creating an alpha version of PP could be
>
>  1. Establish a project with funding and people (including project
>     manager and lead programmer).
>  2. Use present BabyIDE to create a new and clean Squeak version with
>     DCI architecture.
>  3. Port new BabyIDE to Pharo.
>  4. ...
>
> We will then have a platform that extends Pharo with the new
> programming  paradigm for programming system behavior (use cases). This
> will be a valuable addition to Pharo as a tool for professional
> programmers. We will also have a platform for building an alpha version
> of PP.
>
> /But before I do anything else, I have to finish my PP documentation on
> my home page
> http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
>   ./
>
> More about DCI at
> http://fulloo.info
> http://fulloo.info/Examples/SqueakExamples/index.html    Includes code
> for examples
> http://fulloo.info/Downloads/BabyIDE.zip     Includes Squeak BabyIDE
> image and Win7-VM.
>                    I'll update the ZIP if anybody is interested in
> actually running BabyIDE
> --Trygve
>
>
>
>
> On 08.05.2018 20:06, H. Hirzel wrote:
>> On 5/6/18, Trygve Reenskaug<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> I'm working on a programing paradigm and IDE for the personal programmer
>>> who wants to control his or her IoT. The size of the target audience I
>>> have in mind is >100 million. I gave up Squeak long ago as a platform
>>> because they obsolete my code faster than I can write it.  I have now
>>> frozen Squeak 3.10.2 and hope its runtime will survive until I find a
>>> better foundation. My hope is that Pharo has a stable kernel that I can
>>> build on.
>> Hello Tryge
>>
>> Good to see that you reconsider to use Smalltalk in 2018, this time
>> Pharo.
>>
>> Am I assuming correctly that you want to continue to work on your IDE
>> which the supports the DCI (Data-Context-Interaction) programming
>> style [1]? The IDE was called "BabyIDE" [2].
>>
>> In 2015 you wrote to the Squeak mailing  list that you are abandoning
>> Squeak (Squeak 3.8, 4.5 or 4.6 at that time and Smalltalk as a whole)
>> in favour of JavaScript, a mainstream language. That you now at least
>> reconsider to use Smalltalk (Pharo) is an interesting result as it
>> reinforces the idea that doing things the Smalltalk way is more
>> promising than going for JavaScript directly [6].
>>
>> As for loading the BabyIDE into Squeak: It is noteworthy that after 10
>> years (done around Squeak version 3.8) of maintaining a fork the
>> Squeakland (Etoys) image has been merged back into Squeak 6.0a trunk.
>> [5]
>>
>> I could actually load some of your tools last year into Squeak 6.0a
>> with very modest fixes last year. [2].
>>
>> It seems that splitting your IDE enhancements into different parts
>> which can be treated independently will probably help.
>>
>> And in addition helpful would be  IMHO to write HOW you construct
>> these tools and WHY you do it. These will help people to maintain your
>> code even if the underlying system changes.
>>
>> It seems worthwhile to try out how it goes with the most recent Squeak
>> version, Squeak 6.0a trunk [8].
>>
>> Another option is to wait a few months and look for the bootstrap
>> version of Pharo 7.
>> All the code is in readable format on github and various types of
>> image files may be built  build from it [7].
>>
>> And the third option is to check out if Cuis (the third Smalltalk
>> which runs on the OpenSmalltalk [3] VM) suits your needs. [4]
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Hannes Hirzel
>>
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> [1] Data-Context-Interactionhttp://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6048
>> [2] BabySREhttp://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2550
>> [3]http://www.opensmalltalk.org/
>> [4] Cuis Smalltalk
>> https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev  ; there is a Cuis
>> mailing list.
>> [5] Etoys in 2017http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6531
>> [6] Of course these days JavaScript cannot be avoided. But it is
>> preferable to generate it with a Smalltalk tool.
>> [7] The file format used in Pharo 7 is called Tonel (no exclamation
>> marks!)
>> [8] Squeak 6.0a trunk downloadhttp://files.squeak.org/6.0alpha/
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> /The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborateto achieve
> a goal. /
> Trygve Reenskaug mailto: [hidden email] <mailto:%[hidden email]>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
> N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info
> Norway                     Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
>
>