Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
Locked
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
 
|
Esteban, I think that when Stef says "a mini version of pillar" he does not mean a mini version of the parser or the AST, but a version that does not have the exporting to html/latex/... On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: and btw, this kind of threads belongs to pharo-dev, not to pharo-users :)
|
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
TL;DR
Main points: Their is no universally accepted markup language. Other communities use their own markup and tools and their markup and tools choice is not determine by other communities decisions. We need a language and tool chain that we can control and maintain which accomplishes our goals. Our language and tools already exist and have existed for longer than most of the other markup languages. Of course they existed in various different forms over the years and have evolved into what they currently are. It might be nice to have a GFM Markdown exporter from Pillar for GitHub projects. I just want to comment on the fact that there is no universal markup language that every development community has settled upon. Making Markdown or some variant the markup language for Pharo only aligns us with a certain part of the development community. Even Markdown is not unified as is evident by the discussion. It is true that GitHub uses their variant of Markdown. And as long as we use GitHub we will need to use their variant for documents that reside on their system. However as a significant counter example to lets all use gfm Markdown, is the Python community and their documentation. https://docs.python.org/devguide/documenting.html """ 7. Documenting Python The Python language has a substantial body of documentation, much of it contributed by various authors. The markup used for the Python documentation is reStructuredText, developed by the docutils project, amended by custom directives and using a toolset named Sphinx to post-process the HTML output. This document describes the style guide for our documentation as well as the custom reStructuredText markup introduced by Sphinx to support Python documentation and how it should be used. The documentation in HTML, PDF or EPUB format is generated from text files written using the reStructuredText format and contained in the CPython Git repository. """ So the Python community uses their own markup language and their own tool chain. So therefore, it is not wrong for a community to go their own way, for their own reasons. Even within the conventional file based languages such as Python. The fact that you have tools such as Pandoc, suggest that there is not true uniformity or unanimity among developers as to the best markup language or tool chain. I believe that a language that we can control and maintain is better than adopting some other foreign markup language that is neither better, nor unanimously used by all. That would ultimately potentially require extensions to accomplish our goals. Then we would be maintaining someone else's language with our extensions that may or may not be accepted by the larger community. This does not prevent but rather encourages fragmentation of the existing Markdown. Regardless, Pillar markup already exists. The tools in Pharo already understand it. Should someone desire to use Pharo which is far more different from Python/Ruby/etc. than Pillar syntax is from Markdown. Then it should be worth their effort to learn our tools. Pillar markup is older than Markdown, etc. It's history begins in SmallWiki. It isn't as if we jumped up and decided to create something new in order to be different. Our markup and tools are older. They (and others) are the ones that decided to do their own markup and tools. And it is okay that they did so. Nothing wrong with doing so. Every community has the right to what they believe is best for their community. Even if other communities disagree. The ability to control and maintain is highly valuable. We can understand what our requirements are for today. But we can not know what the requirements are in the future. Nor can we know that Markdown or whomever will have such requirements when they appear. It is easy to see in the beginning with the Squeak Wiki syntax to the now Pillar syntax, changes that have been made to accommodate new requirements as they became known. We need to maintain that ability. Sure we would reserve the right to do so in any language we adopt. But the then current standard bearer of said language would determine whether what we do is acceptable and incorporate or whether we are then in fact adding to their fragmentation. Pillar is ours. There is not fragmentation when we evolve. However, since we have made a decision to use GitHub and GitHub has made a decision to use their own GFM Markdown. It might be nice to have a GFM Markdown exporter from Pillar for GitHub projects. This way we can use our own tools and markup language to accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. Including generating a Readme.md for our GitHub projects. Just wanted to toss out this simple opinion and facts about the situation. Jimmie On 08/14/2017 04:10 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi Tim, > > The main benefit of relying on Pillar is that we control its syntax and can easily extend it for our purposes. Also, there was quite a bit of engineering invested in it, and even though we still need to improve it, there exists a pipeline that allows people to quickly publish books. > > The figure embedding problem is one example of the need to customize the syntax and behavior, but this extensibility will become even more important for supporting the idea of moving the documentation inside the image. For example, the ability to refer to a class, method or other artifacts will be quite relevant soon especially that the editor will be able to embed advanced elements inside the text. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Aug 14, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi Stef - I think your’s is a fair requirement (in fact I hit something similar when doing a static website using a JS markdown framework - and this is why I mentioned Kramdown which adds a few extras to regular markdown - but it feels like it goes a bit too far). >> >> My next item on my learning todo list was to try and replace that JS generator with something from Smalltalk - so I think we can possibly come up with something that ticks all the right boxes (I’d like to try anyway). >> >> I’ll keep working away on it and compare notes with you. I think with Pillar, it was more that things like headers, bold and italics are similar concepts but just use different characters - so I keep typing the wrong thing and getting frustrated particularly when we embrace Git and readme.md is in markdown. >> >> >> Tim >> >>> On 13 Aug 2017, at 20:08, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi tim >>> >>> I personally do not care much about the syntax but I care about what I >>> can do with it >>> (ref, cite, ... ) >>> I cannot write books in markdown because reference to figures!!!!!! >>> were missing. >>> >>> And of course a parser because markdown is not really nice to parse >>> and I will not write a parser because I have something else to do. I >>> want to make pillar smaller, simpler, nicer. >>> >>> Now if someone come up with a parser that parse for REAL a markdown >>> that can be extended with decent behavior (figure reference, section >>> reference, cite) and can be extended because there are many things >>> that can be nice to have (for example I want to be able to write the >>> example below) and emit a PillarModel (AST) we can talk to have >>> another syntax for Pillar but not before. >>> >>> [[[test >>> 2+3 >>>>>> 5 >>> ]]] >>> >>> and being able to verify that the doc is in sync. >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Of course, I/we recognise and appreciate all the work that's gone into docs in pillar - but I think it should be reasonably straightforward to write a converter as it is pretty closely related from what I have seen. >>>> >>>> So I don't make the suggestion flippantly, and would want to help write a converter and get us to a common ground where we can differentiate on the aspects where we can excel. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 23:21, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A long time issue with Markdown was that there was no standardization (and when I used Pillar's MD export ~2 years ago it didn't work well). >>>>> >>>>> However CommonMark ( http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ ) has become the de-facto standard, so it would make sense to support it bidirectionally with Pillar. >>>>> >>>>>> The readme.md that Peter is talking about is gfm markdown >>>>> Well, technically it is just a CommonMark, as I am not using any github extensions. >>>>> (Github uses CommonMarks and adds just couple small extensions.) >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>> >> > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > “Live like you mean it." > > |
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
Jimmie et al. nicely reasoned arguments - and Doru's point about controlling the syntax is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought about.
Personally, I find having too many similar syntax’s confusing - contributing to things is hard enough - having to remember that its !! Instead of ## and “” instead of ** is just frustrating for me. My vote would be what Peter suggested - use http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ and put our Pillar extensions back on top for things that Stef was mentioning. (I think that’s what I’ve understood gfm markdown is). Sure, maybe we were first with Pillar, but for me, lots of programming is in other languages, and I use Smalltalk where I can, and a hybrid of multiple languages and projects is often the reality - so a lowest common denominator of Markdown is just easier. The fact that we are quite close to what our colleagues in other languages use (regardless of what Python has chosen), is quite interesting. That said, if the community wants to stick to its gun’s thats fine - I will probably still investigate how to use Commonmark for myself, and will still contribute to Pillar docs where I can (and curse history) - but I think we are long better off trying to join emerging standards where we can particularly if they aren’t our core language thing. And it just makes it less frictionless for ourselves and newcomers. Of course, if we were to move, we would need to translate a lot of quality docs to a new format - but I would be up for contributing to that if that was a deciding factor. Tim
|
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
You hit several birds with one single mail.
2017-08-14 13:34 GMT-03:00 Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]>: > Jimmie et al. nicely reasoned arguments - and Doru's point about controlling > the syntax is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought about. > > Personally, I find having too many similar syntax’s confusing - contributing > to things is hard enough - having to remember that its !! Instead of ## and > “” instead of ** is just frustrating for me. +1 Not only for docs, most platforms like Slack/Discord share the syntax, so now I'm getting "muscle memory" when typing literals using the backtick (`) character, quoting with > or pasting snippets using ``` > Sure, maybe we were first with Pillar, but for me, lots of programming is in > other languages, and I use Smalltalk where I can, and a hybrid of multiple > languages and projects is often the reality - so a lowest common denominator > of Markdown is just easier. The fact that we are quite close to what our > colleagues in other languages use (regardless of what Python has chosen), is > quite interesting. This helps building "bridges" with other communities. The language as a means of exchange is always the lowest common denominator. As long as it's "efficient enough" then I vote to use what other communities use. > That said, if the community wants to stick to its gun’s thats fine - I will > probably still investigate how to use Commonmark for myself, and will still > contribute to Pillar docs where I can (and curse history) - but I think we > are long better off trying to join emerging standards where we can > particularly if they aren’t our core language thing. And it just makes it > less frictionless for ourselves and newcomers. The "Not Invented Here" syndrome is strong among Smalltalkers, it's important to be aware of this bias and think more than once whether eating our own dogfood adds value to the core of what Pharo brings. I think we missed some good years fighting with our own SCM and in the end git (or any other file based SCM) prevailed, even when it has limitations. Pareto (80-20) for everything non-core business should be a guide. > Of course, if we were to move, we would need to translate a lot of quality > docs to a new format - but I would be up for contributing to that if that > was a deciding factor. There are some Markdown exporters AFAIK, or it could be written. Esteban A. Maringolo |
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
In reply to this post by Tim Mackinnon
We can change the syntax or propose an alternate one as soon as it
uses the same internal structure. Stef On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: > Jimmie et al. nicely reasoned arguments - and Doru's point about controlling > the syntax is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought about. > > Personally, I find having too many similar syntax’s confusing - contributing > to things is hard enough - having to remember that its !! Instead of ## and > “” instead of ** is just frustrating for me. > > My vote would be what Peter suggested - use http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ > and put our Pillar extensions back on top for things that Stef was > mentioning. (I think that’s what I’ve understood gfm markdown is). > > Sure, maybe we were first with Pillar, but for me, lots of programming is in > other languages, and I use Smalltalk where I can, and a hybrid of multiple > languages and projects is often the reality - so a lowest common denominator > of Markdown is just easier. The fact that we are quite close to what our > colleagues in other languages use (regardless of what Python has chosen), is > quite interesting. > > That said, if the community wants to stick to its gun’s thats fine - I will > probably still investigate how to use Commonmark for myself, and will still > contribute to Pillar docs where I can (and curse history) - but I think we > are long better off trying to join emerging standards where we can > particularly if they aren’t our core language thing. And it just makes it > less frictionless for ourselves and newcomers. > > Of course, if we were to move, we would need to translate a lot of quality > docs to a new format - but I would be up for contributing to that if that > was a deciding factor. > > Tim > > > On 14 Aug 2017, at 16:41, Jimmie Houchin <[hidden email]> wrote: > > TL;DR > > Main points: > Their is no universally accepted markup language. > Other communities use their own markup and tools and their markup and tools > choice is not determine by other communities decisions. > We need a language and tool chain that we can control and maintain which > accomplishes our goals. > Our language and tools already exist and have existed for longer than most > of the other markup languages. Of course they existed in various different > forms over the years and have evolved into what they currently are. > It might be nice to have a GFM Markdown exporter from Pillar for GitHub > projects. > > > I just want to comment on the fact that there is no universal markup > language that every development community has settled upon. Making Markdown > or some variant the markup language for Pharo only aligns us with a certain > part of the development community. Even Markdown is not unified as is > evident by the discussion. > > It is true that GitHub uses their variant of Markdown. And as long as we use > GitHub we will need to use their variant for documents that reside on their > system. > > However as a significant counter example to lets all use gfm Markdown, is > the Python community and their documentation. > > https://docs.python.org/devguide/documenting.html > """ > 7. Documenting Python > The Python language has a substantial body of documentation, much of it > contributed by various authors. The markup used for the Python documentation > is reStructuredText, developed by the docutils project, amended by custom > directives and using a toolset named Sphinx to post-process the HTML output. > > This document describes the style guide for our documentation as well as the > custom reStructuredText markup introduced by Sphinx to support Python > documentation and how it should be used. > > The documentation in HTML, PDF or EPUB format is generated from text files > written using the reStructuredText format and contained in the CPython Git > repository. > """ > > So the Python community uses their own markup language and their own tool > chain. So therefore, it is not wrong for a community to go their own way, > for their own reasons. Even within the conventional file based languages > such as Python. > > The fact that you have tools such as Pandoc, suggest that there is not true > uniformity or unanimity among developers as to the best markup language or > tool chain. > > I believe that a language that we can control and maintain is better than > adopting some other foreign markup language that is neither better, nor > unanimously used by all. That would ultimately potentially require > extensions to accomplish our goals. Then we would be maintaining someone > else's language with our extensions that may or may not be accepted by the > larger community. This does not prevent but rather encourages fragmentation > of the existing Markdown. > > Regardless, Pillar markup already exists. The tools in Pharo already > understand it. Should someone desire to use Pharo which is far more > different from Python/Ruby/etc. than Pillar syntax is from Markdown. Then it > should be worth their effort to learn our tools. > > Pillar markup is older than Markdown, etc. It's history begins in SmallWiki. > It isn't as if we jumped up and decided to create something new in order to > be different. Our markup and tools are older. They (and others) are the ones > that decided to do their own markup and tools. And it is okay that they did > so. Nothing wrong with doing so. Every community has the right to what they > believe is best for their community. Even if other communities disagree. > > The ability to control and maintain is highly valuable. We can understand > what our requirements are for today. But we can not know what the > requirements are in the future. Nor can we know that Markdown or whomever > will have such requirements when they appear. It is easy to see in the > beginning with the Squeak Wiki syntax to the now Pillar syntax, changes that > have been made to accommodate new requirements as they became known. We need > to maintain that ability. Sure we would reserve the right to do so in any > language we adopt. But the then current standard bearer of said language > would determine whether what we do is acceptable and incorporate or whether > we are then in fact adding to their fragmentation. Pillar is ours. There is > not fragmentation when we evolve. > > However, since we have made a decision to use GitHub and GitHub has made a > decision to use their own GFM Markdown. It might be nice to have a GFM > Markdown exporter from Pillar for GitHub projects. This way we can use our > own tools and markup language to accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. > Including generating a Readme.md for our GitHub projects. > > Just wanted to toss out this simple opinion and facts about the situation. > > Jimmie > > > On 08/14/2017 04:10 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > The main benefit of relying on Pillar is that we control its syntax and can > easily extend it for our purposes. Also, there was quite a bit of > engineering invested in it, and even though we still need to improve it, > there exists a pipeline that allows people to quickly publish books. > > The figure embedding problem is one example of the need to customize the > syntax and behavior, but this extensibility will become even more important > for supporting the idea of moving the documentation inside the image. For > example, the ability to refer to a class, method or other artifacts will be > quite relevant soon especially that the editor will be able to embed > advanced elements inside the text. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On Aug 14, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi Stef - I think your’s is a fair requirement (in fact I hit something > similar when doing a static website using a JS markdown framework - and this > is why I mentioned Kramdown which adds a few extras to regular markdown - > but it feels like it goes a bit too far). > > My next item on my learning todo list was to try and replace that JS > generator with something from Smalltalk - so I think we can possibly come up > with something that ticks all the right boxes (I’d like to try anyway). > > I’ll keep working away on it and compare notes with you. I think with > Pillar, it was more that things like headers, bold and italics are similar > concepts but just use different characters - so I keep typing the wrong > thing and getting frustrated particularly when we embrace Git and readme.md > is in markdown. > > > Tim > > On 13 Aug 2017, at 20:08, Stephane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi tim > > I personally do not care much about the syntax but I care about what I > can do with it > (ref, cite, ... ) > I cannot write books in markdown because reference to figures!!!!!! > were missing. > > And of course a parser because markdown is not really nice to parse > and I will not write a parser because I have something else to do. I > want to make pillar smaller, simpler, nicer. > > Now if someone come up with a parser that parse for REAL a markdown > that can be extended with decent behavior (figure reference, section > reference, cite) and can be extended because there are many things > that can be nice to have (for example I want to be able to write the > example below) and emit a PillarModel (AST) we can talk to have > another syntax for Pillar but not before. > > [[[test > 2+3 > > 5 > > ]]] > > and being able to verify that the doc is in sync. > > > Stef > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Of course, I/we recognise and appreciate all the work that's gone into docs > in pillar - but I think it should be reasonably straightforward to write a > converter as it is pretty closely related from what I have seen. > > So I don't make the suggestion flippantly, and would want to help write a > converter and get us to a common ground where we can differentiate on the > aspects where we can excel. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 11 Aug 2017, at 23:21, Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote: > > A long time issue with Markdown was that there was no standardization (and > when I used Pillar's MD export ~2 years ago it didn't work well). > > However CommonMark ( http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/ ) has become the > de-facto standard, so it would make sense to support it bidirectionally with > Pillar. > > The readme.md that Peter is talking about is gfm markdown > > Well, technically it is just a CommonMark, as I am not using any github > extensions. > (Github uses CommonMarks and adds just couple small extensions.) > > Peter > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > “Live like you mean it." > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Esteban A. Maringolo
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <[hidden email]> wrote: You hit several birds with one single mail.
+1. So I've posted this before... describing that "The only strategy in getting people to switch to your product is to eliminate barriers" But more... the best reason for Pillar to support a Markdown-ish syntax, is that when we scratch-our-own-itch (nominally for Pillar) to build the best damn markup-editor ever (because we can!) - if this happened to support Markdown it can draw in Markdown-non-Pharo users (because its the best editor ever!). Those users later want to make modifications, and now have a *reason* to learn Pharo... ahHaA! now you see the cunning plan... So don't just promote to people "hey come and play with this cool toy of ours (Pharo)." Instead give them a toy they *already-want* (Markdown editor) and then when they want to change the batteries, they *need* to use our special screwdriver (Pharo). cheers -ben
|
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, In general (you all know me), I have the policy of “do not go alien just because” which means we do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time and we need to stick with what is already there and known (I have pushed many changes in pharo following this direction, iceberg being just the latest), but we need to keep also the basis of what we are (which means: when we need to stay alien, we need to embrace it too). Said that: while I would LOVE to have a markdown compatible format, the amount of effort put on pillar to make it *what we need* and is a format used not just for doing README.md but to write books, etc., then replacing it would be complicated. but… I think we can do pillar syntax more “markdown alike” (and we can even have a stripped-pillar with would be even more like md), I would salute such change. cheers, Esteban
|
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
Even though I've initiated this discussion I kind of stopped reading because everyone started discussing completely unrelated things...
The initial point was.... "we are using github/gitlab more and more, lets leverage it more" New, lets separate the concepts at play here... "Pillar - document model" - the workhorse of pillar and (imho) the most important part of it, and also the part I am interested in being included. Because then I can generate the document directly without using any syntax... "Pillar - syntax" - we can have endless arguments whether the syntax is good or bad, and imho that should be a separate discussion unrelated to the Pillar inclusion "Markdown for unrelated usecases" - whether you can or cannot write your thesis in markdown is really irelevant here "Markdown - export" - there will always be different variants and extensions for Markdown, simply because the sites using markdown offer different capabilities. Therefore the first focus should be on the most impact/effort ratio, which is CommonMark (basically the only meaningful Markdown specification), and GFM (which is a CommonMark with added tables and strikethrough). Adding support for more extensive export support, whether code related (e.g. GitLab), or code unrelated (writing a thesis) should be a future discussion, it is not relevant or too effortful right now. "Markdown - import" - I would love to be able to write markdown and have it imported into the Pillar document model, however that is imho moot point right now, as it can always be added later To summarize: * primary * include pillar document model * include pillar syntax (as an import format) * add CommonMark+GFM export * secondary * discuss Pillar syntax if needed (in a _new_ thread) * discuss Markdown parser / importing CommonMark into Pillar model * any other discussion not pertinent here should go elsewhere Peter On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 06:05:29PM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote: > Hi, > > In general (you all know me), I have the policy of “do not go alien just because” which means we do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time and we need to stick with what is already there and known (I have pushed many changes in pharo following this direction, iceberg being just the latest), but we need to keep also the basis of what we are (which means: when we need to stay alien, we need to embrace it too). > > Said that: while I would LOVE to have a markdown compatible format, the amount of effort put on pillar to make it *what we need* and is a format used not just for doing README.md but to write books, etc., then replacing it would be complicated. > > but… I think we can do pillar syntax more “markdown alike” (and we can even have a stripped-pillar with would be even more like md), I would salute such change. > > cheers, > Esteban > > > > On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:23, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Ben Coman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > >> You hit several birds with one single mail. > >> > >> 2017-08-14 13:34 GMT-03:00 Tim Mackinnon <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > >> > Jimmie et al. nicely reasoned arguments - and Doru's point about controlling > >> > the syntax is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought about. > >> > > >> > Personally, I find having too many similar syntax’s confusing - contributing > >> > to things is hard enough - having to remember that its !! Instead of ## and > >> > “” instead of ** is just frustrating for me. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Not only for docs, most platforms like Slack/Discord share the syntax, > >> so now I'm getting "muscle memory" when typing literals using the > >> backtick (`) character, quoting with > or pasting snippets using ``` > >> > >> +1. So I've posted this before... > >> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/ <https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/06/03/strategy-letter-iii-let-me-go-back/> > >> describing that "The only strategy in getting people to switch to your product is to eliminate barriers" > >> > >> But more... the best reason for Pillar to support a Markdown-ish syntax, is that when we scratch-our-own-itch (nominally for Pillar) to build the best damn markup-editor ever (because we can!) - if this happened to support Markdown it can draw in Markdown-non-Pharo users (because its the best editor ever!). Those users later want to make modifications, and now have a *reason* to learn Pharo... ahHaA! now you see the cunning plan... > >> > >> So don't just promote to people "hey come and play with this cool toy of ours (Pharo)." > >> Instead give them a toy they *already-want* (Markdown editor) and then when they want to change the batteries, they *need* to use our special screwdriver (Pharo). > > > > +1! > > > >> > >> cheers -ben > >> > >> > >> > Sure, maybe we were first with Pillar, but for me, lots of programming is in > >> > other languages, and I use Smalltalk where I can, and a hybrid of multiple > >> > languages and projects is often the reality - so a lowest common denominator > >> > of Markdown is just easier. The fact that we are quite close to what our > >> > colleagues in other languages use (regardless of what Python has chosen), is > >> > quite interesting. > >> > >> This helps building "bridges" with other communities. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The language as a means of exchange is always the lowest common denominator. > >> As long as it's "efficient enough" then I vote to use what other > >> communities use. > >> > >> > That said, if the community wants to stick to its gun’s thats fine - I will > >> > probably still investigate how to use Commonmark for myself, and will still > >> > contribute to Pillar docs where I can (and curse history) - but I think we > >> > are long better off trying to join emerging standards where we can > >> > particularly if they aren’t our core language thing. And it just makes it > >> > less frictionless for ourselves and newcomers. > >> > >> The "Not Invented Here" syndrome is strong among Smalltalkers, it's > >> important to be aware of this bias and think more than once whether > >> eating our own dogfood adds value to the core of what Pharo brings. > >> > >> I think we missed some good years fighting with our own SCM and in the > >> end git (or any other file based SCM) prevailed, even when it has > >> limitations. > >> > >> Pareto (80-20) for everything non-core business should be a guide. > >> > >> > Of course, if we were to move, we would need to translate a lot of quality > >> > docs to a new format - but I would be up for contributing to that if that > >> > was a deciding factor. > >> > >> There are some Markdown exporters AFAIK, or it could be written. > >> > >> > >> Esteban A. Maringolo > |
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
Is it really necessary ? I am more a modular guy , I would love to get an image that 0.1% the size of the current one and offer me a convenient package manager to install the tools I like. I have used Pillar ALOT probably more than any other Pharo library because I was doing Pharo documentation stuff. I have even used Pillar to build my website , yeah I know that is not the pupose of Pillar but with some modification and the addition of a tool I created (Octopus) it help me generate some portion of the website via mustache. Do I want Pillar in ? Nope Already the System Browser looks like a monster ready to eat you alive, I think we need to make the image a lot less threatening especially for newcomers. There is such thing as too much info. Pillar is in the Package Browser you just click and install it if you dont mind the wait because its a rather big install. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM Peter Uhnak <[hidden email]> wrote: Even though I've initiated this discussion I kind of stopped reading because everyone started discussing completely unrelated things... |
|
|
hi Dimitris (good to see you around ;) ), And improve tools sometime means to add stuff (I’m not very happy with it either, I would like to remove more than what I add, but it is like that). For example, if we want to have good class comments, we need some markup format, then the best thing we have is pillar and then we need a parser and then the easiest to use thing we have is petit parser. Which means we will need an image that have a core PetitParser and a basic Pillar… so we can have proper documentation. Of course, maybe the full pillar is too much (as it is the full petit parser, probably) so we need to think carefully what we put inside and what we left outside. Same is with everything: why to put athens, or glamour, or X, Y, Z. (things that few people use, but are very important for our echosystem in general). Now, along with this “bloating” movements, that adds more elements to the system and because of that increases essential complexity, we are working on the other direction: bootstrapping and modularising Pharo so in the near future (it should be done for P7 or as late to P8) you will be able to create an image with the elements you want. Another thing we need to work on (but that’s in part documentation and in part modifications to be done) we need to work on overall availability/comprehensibility of the system. So… we need to continue adding things, in order to continue improving. We also need to remove a lot of things that are duplicated or obsolete. Pharo will always be “the deliverable we make” (including all things we officially support as “part of it”)… but we are making possible that everybody can also do “the Pharo they want”. cheers, Esteban
|
|
|
a corollary of this is that, if we think well and we include the correct addition, then it’s exponential (having a real parser inside can easy a lot of developments, and can also lead to better tools).
|
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
Got an architecture discussion with a client this morning and a lot of pain they face is that there are too many choices out there on some platforms. A batteries included distro with one good framework doing its thing nicely if really a good thing to have. It reduces the amount of choice and thus allows to focus on the business problem instead of diving into endless technical discussions. Phil On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:25 PM Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not going anywhere , just taking a break from Pharo :)
great
Yeah.. about that. See the issue is exactly what you just mentioned , improvement. Sometimes improving makes things worse. Markdown class comments is an excellent example of this. You do the logical thing and offer markdown for class comments , you make the image more complex by adding a feature the average user would need but you greatly improve your ability for class comments. But your average user does not even bother adding one line comment on the main class what are the chances that will use markdown ? I am willing to bet big money on "close to zero chance". Hence you end up making things actually worse by adding code that your user wont use and instead increasing the complexity and his motivation to explore and fall in love with your project.
Well if few people use them, how they are important to your ecosystem ? If you talking about dependencies then that means the ecosystem is deeply flawed and we go back to the modularity question. I fail to see how Athens is important to the Pharo ecosystem , apart from Roassal people I have not seen anyone else using it consistently. If you were talking about the UFFI I would agree 100% but I cannot agree by any means that Athens is so important for Pharo that must be included in the image. By the way I am a graphics guy so biased in favour of Athens.
I can understand having a Parser in image to parse Pharo syntax and other things, big thumbs up for that I think that would justify the inclusion for the average user. Parsing and dealing with text is a big deal afterall. I am ok with offering a minimal image and not being the default one. As long it exists I am happy. |
Re: [Pharo-users] including Pillar in Pharo image by default
|
|
I remember my 10 year self struggling learning to code basic back in 1988 on an Amstrad CPC 6128 with Locomotive Basic that required entering line numbers before the code statement. IDEs , code editors and what else were unheard of for me at least and even if they did exist would be nowhere near the budget of a 10 year old. Nowdays we have a ton of options, easy access to it, its free , its open source, insanely powerful and even documented. You can even find Youtube tutorials if too lazy to read text and also a ton of examples and snippets to get you started. I agree 1000% with your argument that "batteries included" version is super important, its one of the major reason why Python exploded in popularity. But yeah I turn to Hulk every time I hear these dreaded 3 words "too many options". I am willing to endure this hell of too many options and even pray it gets much much worse. But then it may be just me :) On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:50 PM Dimitris Chloupis <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |