Roadmap on tools?
Locked
12
12
 
|
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
I see GTInspector as a big splash. I guess that if there would be a Tool Roadmap, it would be focused on GTInspector.
Alexandre On Aug 23, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Juraj Kubelka <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have found useful those roadmaps: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-workingRoadmaps > Could it be possible to make one for the Pharo tools (e.g. Nautilus)? I think there are people who have better idea what to make first and what later. I would like to contribute on it and roadmap could help me. > > Thanks, > Juraj -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Juraj Kubelka-5
On 23/8/14 23:34, Juraj Kubelka wrote: > Hi, > > I have found useful those roadmaps: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-workingRoadmaps > Could it be possible to make one for the Pharo tools (e.g. Nautilus)? I think there are people who have better idea what to make first and what later. I would like to contribute on it and roadmap could help me. Sure! The point of the roadmap is really listing the feasible steps to improve the system in a regular manner. Create one for Nautilus. - I would remove the bytecode and text icons (which are not consistent with the instance access BTW) - I would remove the history navigation for example Now we will certainly add (but in a modular way) the GT-Inspector. But it does not mean that we should not continue to improve the traditional tools. Stef > > Thanks, > Juraj > |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
On 24/8/14 05:39, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > I see GTInspector as a big splash. I guess that if there would be a Tool Roadmap, it would be focused on GTInspector. Not necessarily. No time to explain sorry but else I would not improve morphic because bloc is coming and parallel actions are important. Stef > > Alexandre > > > On Aug 23, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Juraj Kubelka <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have found useful those roadmaps: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-workingRoadmaps >> Could it be possible to make one for the Pharo tools (e.g. Nautilus)? I think there are people who have better idea what to make first and what later. I would like to contribute on it and roadmap could help me. >> >> Thanks, >> Juraj |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
This is supercool :) People are taking the "pharo is yours" slogan into the next level. Continue like that, guys! Esteban
|
|
|
2014-08-25 13:56 GMT-03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]>:
> This is supercool :) > People are taking the "pharo is yours" slogan into the next level. > > Continue like that, guys! > > Esteban The "pull request" workflow promotes this kind of collaboration too :) Regards! |
|
|
In reply to this post by stepharo
+1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal,
Glamour, Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse interest from doubtful people. I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on dotNet, Delphi or C++. And sometimes they remember that too ... (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha ...) :( Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't understand the relationship with GTInspector ? I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? I understand that you are very busy, so no problem if there is no link on existing material, I should survive, just wait a little :) TIA Regards Alain Le 24/08/2014 08:03, stepharo a écrit : > > On 24/8/14 05:39, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >> I see GTInspector as a big splash. I guess that if there would be a >> Tool Roadmap, it would be focused on GTInspector. > > Not necessarily. > No time to explain sorry but else I would not improve morphic because > bloc is coming and parallel actions are important. > > Stef |
|
thats a normal reaction, the vast majority of people don't care about progress they care about money. They care about using products with large market share. This is why Apple releases information about its commercial success each semester. Progress is all about getting outside your comfort zone and doing the hard work sometimes driving yourself bankrupt (see Tesla) . So Pharo or Squeak in the end is for that minority of people who look for something really different and unique. If all you look is an language that is a variant of C or an IDE that is a variant of Visual Studion then neither Squeak or Pharo is for you and the fact you dislike the interface is just an excuse. I strongly disagree on Morphic, personally I love using it. It can be cleaner but still beats any other GUI I have used in terms of ease of use without sacrificing power. Spec on the other hand looks ugly to me , weird and very difficult to understand. But maybe its just my opinion and how my brain is wired. Afterall Spec has been very popular with Pharo devs so definitely is something I keep a close eye on . I really hope Morphic does not get removed, at least continue to be distributed as third party library.Though thats is unlikely with all the hard work of cleaning it up.
Definetly there is room for a lot of libraries and alternatives, after all each person has different needs, preferences and goals. Personally I like seeing all this variation even if that means I wont be using most of it and there will be only of handful of tools I will be using. I love seeing people thinking outside the box and going for unexplored territory and I think Pharo as a platform is ideal for that.
A roadmap is a very useful to have it helps the community get in sync and eliminates duplicate efforts. I am very interested into the Morphic cleanup and I may join the efforts too. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Alain Rastoul <[hidden email]> wrote: +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse interest from doubtful people. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Juraj Kubelka-5
2014-08-25 18:40 GMT+02:00 Juraj Kubelka <[hidden email]>:
Great! Thank you.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by kilon.alios
Morphic and Spec address different concerns. Building a UI with Morphic alone is what one would use to do something very custom (like a game for example).
Now, creating a larger UI that way is definitely going to be super pain in the assets. That's where Spec does fit. Of course at this point in time, the underlying Morphic widgets are quite complicated and sometimes behave in strange ways (try right clicks on the dev tools in unexpected areas...).
It takes a while to get used to but it works well. http://spec.st/docs/home/ I also wouldn't want Morphic to be removed, but definitely would like to see it cleaned up in some areas. What I am not sure about is how much of an external library we will depend on. One key thing in Morphic is that one can learn a lot by looking inside (and solve problems), something which will maybe not be there with a new version.
Phil
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Alain rastoul
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > interest from doubtful people. > I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > dotNet, Delphi or C++. > And sometimes they remember that too ... > (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > ...) > :( > Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > > Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use Smalltalk) and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential problem for Pharo. https://github.com/spec-framework/spec#license -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ |
|
|
On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <[hidden email]> wrote: >> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >> interest from doubtful people. >> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >> And sometimes they remember that too ... >> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >> ...) >> :( >> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >> >> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > > Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > Smalltalk) > and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > problem for Pharo. > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have a licence when we started to use it). Marcus |
|
|
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >>> interest from doubtful people. >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>> ...) >>> :( >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>> >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >> >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >> Smalltalk) >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >> problem for Pharo. >> > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > a licence when we started to use it). I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double licencing of spec. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ |
|
|
> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double
> licencing of spec. Is that new? Why is it double licensed? Thanks T. |
|
|
In reply to this post by SergeStinckwich
Hi all,
Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed.
So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. Cheers, Luc
2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]>:
|
|
|
In reply to this post by SergeStinckwich
On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >> >> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >> >> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >> >> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >> a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > I do not think that you can change a license without getting the OK of all authors, I guess it is a mistake in the config of the project. Marcus |
|
|
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >>> >>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >>> >>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >>> >>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >>> a licence when we started to use it). >> >> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >> licencing of spec. >> > > I do not think that you can change a license without getting the OK of all authors, I guess > it is a mistake in the config of the project. This is not a mistake, look here: https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/commit/07ea83ca50523b4a912e363ff2f3974c69314b7f -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Luc Fabresse
Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. Phil On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: Roadmap on tools?
|
|
There is another option: work together again.
On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:56, [hidden email] wrote: > Due to Ben leaving, we have one MIT version and his version. > Now, we will have the Pharo fork and his version. > > Maybe is it time to fork the repo and get our own under the Pharo project. > > Phil > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Luc Fabresse <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. > To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. > So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. > > Cheers, > > Luc > > > 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > > > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |