Roadmap for Pharo 8.0
Locked
 
|
Hi list,
We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. Anyway, here it is: Image === 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). 3) Improve Refactors 4) Improve Calypso 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. VM/Low-level side === 1) headless vm We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: - a build on windows - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) 3) ThreadedFFI. It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. 4) memory policies. Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. Process === 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. Others === 1) Launcher - Launcher us getting a new UI - Tests - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). 2) Cargo - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : - embedded VM - event driven VM - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? |
|
|
Hi Esteban,
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:09, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: > > 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: > - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". Is there somewhere I can read more about this? (I'm not disagreeing, just interested in what it means). Thanks, Alistair |
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
Sounds awesome. Getting the basics rock solid and as a first class server citizen. Sweet! Phil On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 16:09 Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email] wrote: Hi list, |
|
|
yay, yay and yay! This should be great for smaller IoT devices.
Could the scope of the headless vm encompass embed-ability? @community, are there any use cases you might like to work on to provide a practical test of such an interface? e.g. events might need to come from a game engine for that integration to work properly.
cool. that might help with embedding in a game engine? cheers -ben
|
Re: Roadmap for Pharo 8.0
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
Dear All,
At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? Cheers, Alexandre > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi list, > > We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. > As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. > Anyway, here it is: > > Image > === > 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) > 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). > 3) Improve Refactors > 4) Improve Calypso > 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). > - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. > > VM/Low-level side > === > 1) headless vm > We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. > To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: > - a build on windows > - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. > > One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). > > 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: > - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". > - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). > - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) > > 3) ThreadedFFI. > It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. > > 4) memory policies. > Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. > > Process > === > 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. > > Others > === > 1) Launcher > - Launcher us getting a new UI > - Tests > - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). > 2) Cargo > - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) > > Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : > - embedded VM > - event driven VM > - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? > > |
Re: Roadmap for Pharo 8.0
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
This would be very useful.
Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:04 AM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Dear All, > > At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages. > > We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. > Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist? > > Cheers, > Alexandre > >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:08 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi list, >> >> We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. >> As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. >> Anyway, here it is: >> >> Image >> === >> 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) >> 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that works and a lot more). >> 3) Improve Refactors >> 4) Improve Calypso >> 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). >> - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this migration can be done. >> >> VM/Low-level side >> === >> 1) headless vm >> We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. >> To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are missing parts: >> - a build on windows >> - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly works... but not completely. >> >> One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). >> >> 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: >> - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we need to put them in "state of the art". >> - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also good Open Source policy (contributing back). >> - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is possible ;) >> >> 3) ThreadedFFI. >> It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make it real. >> >> 4) memory policies. >> Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what they need. >> >> Process >> === >> 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without breaking modularisations. >> >> Others >> === >> 1) Launcher >> - Launcher us getting a new UI >> - Tests >> - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want OSSubprocess in windows). >> 2) Cargo >> - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point decide if it will fly or not :) >> >> Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : >> - embedded VM >> - event driven VM >> - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list
That would be nice for the delivered image. With a revamped Connectors implementation (does anyone remember?) I would only wish a format for integrating this into pillar that would make documentation super awesome. Norbert
|
|
|
Hi,
Yes I forget to say that this roadmap is not everything and there are other stuff that can be done/contributed/etc. and we would like to include. And of course we have the “everyday work”, cleanups, enhancements, etc. Esteban
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear All, I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. A+ Serge Stinckwic h Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) Sorbonne University (SU) French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) U niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroun
|
|
|
I don’t agree. Why should we reduce the size of the default image? It should show a lot of things you can do with pharo. As everything is loaded from bootstrap we can have now every size of the image we want. I would rather see an official minimal image that people will download for building their software. But the development should contain everything that eases development and shows what pharo can do. The critical border to me is what we provide in documentation. On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on and these tools would be missing. Norbert
|
|
|
+1 (with proviso there is that minimal image you can use to build up from)
|
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by NorbertHartl
NorbertHartl wrote
> On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But > this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on > and these tools would be missing. Yes, this can be a complex problem. For me the key question is what's the point of having a Dynabook if we can't even use it ourselves as developers?! However, isn't the use case for the minimum image more for deployment? I would think that most devs would/could work in the full image and then deploy to the minimal, where interactive documentation would be presumably less important. Also IIUC, in GT the interactive documentation is just pillar underneath and so could be read in static form even if the UI engine wasn't present e.g. as class comments. Also, it seems the full docs should be loadable onto minimal if needed, no? OT: I was happy to see the recent announcement of a GH-based project catalog, but at the same time was disappointed to see it seemingly implemented as text. I wasn't going to say anything because I didn't want to complain about a nice gift, but since this subject is mildly related, I'll just mention that IMHO it makes much more sense to have something that is a static dump of a dynamic system like the Pharo Catalog than to have two competing systems - one live and one not. ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
Cheers,
Sean |
|
|
In reply to this post by EstebanLM
Hi -
Looks interesting. Is sista still a thing that is in the pipeline? Thanks for all your effort. Paul EstebanLM wrote > Hi list, > > We started Pharo 8.0 development and we wanted to share (and discuss, if > needed) what is our current Roadmap for Pharo 8.0. > As you can see, Windows is getting some love, and also UI. > Anyway, here it is: > > Image > === > 1) Missing parts for headless VM to work (explained a bit later) > 2) We need to improve Epicea speed. And in general, source access speed. > We want to remove the old changes file (since Epicea already does that > works and a lot more). > 3) Improve Refactors > 4) Improve Calypso > 5) Introduce Spec2 (our re-work on this framework). > - We also want to migrate our tools to it (Inspector, Debugger, Spotter > and Calypso are the remaining parts). We will see how much of this > migration can be done. > > VM/Low-level side > === > 1) headless vm > We want to have a real headless VM and make it our default VM. > To it, most of the work vm-side is already made by Ronie, but there are > missing parts: > - a build on windows > - image side capabilities: we use SDL2 to start the world, and it mostly > works... but not completely. > > One cool thing of this is that we will -finally- be able to clean the > event handling, which is ugly (and works bad). > > 2) Windows several missing/non working parts: > - file primitives are slow. This is because they rely in old APIs and we > need to put them in "state of the art". > - libgit2 does not processes long paths. We workarounded the problem with > tonel, but at a point we need to take care about this. Real problem with > this is we need to contribute the solution to libgit2, but this is also > good Open Source policy (contributing back). > - OSSubprocess in windows. We believe we need to extend OSSubprocess (our > solution to communicate with system) to windows. And we believe is > possible ;) > > 3) ThreadedFFI. > It is already too much time since we have this in agenda. Is time to make > it real. > > 4) memory policies. > Tweaking the VM to enhance its memory usage is possible, but hard. We want > to adopt an scheme of "memory policies" that will allow users to pick what > they need. > > Process > === > 1) We will add multiple source directories to Iceberg. This is needed to > allow us to put all Pharo sub-projects into an unique project without > breaking modularisations. > > Others > === > 1) Launcher > - Launcher us getting a new UI > - Tests > - It needs to be more solid (in part, that's the reason why we want > OSSubprocess in windows). > 2) Cargo > - We need to revisit cargo (a new dependency manager) and at a point > decide if it will fly or not :) > > Nice to have (most probably not this version, but in our TODO) : > - embedded VM > - event driven VM > - what happens if we split VM into main thread and vm thread? -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |