SmalltalkHub
Locked
12
12
 
|
Copied from the Pharo-project list:
"Hi, We've been working on a new code repository& project management application for Smalltalk with ESUG named SmalltalkHub. If everything goes fine, the app should be in public beta in a week. The source code of SmalltalkHub will be available at the same moment (the project itself is hosted by SmalltalkHub). Here's a screenshot in the meantime. http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html Cheers, Nicolas -- Nicolas Petton http://www.nicolas-petton.fr " |
|
|
Hi guys,
Note also that SmalltalkHub will be sooner or later a Smalltalk-wide code repository, not just Pharo. For Monticello based Smalltalks (Squeak and Pharo) for the start but with vision to include all Smalltalk repositories in the future, including as old as Smalltalk Goodies from 90's. Nicolas just forgot to post announcement here too. Remember also that Nico is now developing mainly on GNU Smalltalk... Best regards Janko On 07. 04. 2011 16:29, Chris Cunnington wrote: > Copied from the Pharo-project list: > > > "Hi, > > We've been working on a new code repository& project management > application for Smalltalk with ESUG named SmalltalkHub. > > If everything goes fine, the app should be in public beta in a week. > The source code of SmalltalkHub will be available at the same moment > (the project itself is hosted by SmalltalkHub). > > Here's a screenshot in the meantime. > http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html > > Cheers, > Nicolas -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
|
|
Hey, that's cool. You'll let us know when it's available to receive #inspect?
On Apr 7, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > Note also that SmalltalkHub will be sooner or later a Smalltalk-wide > code repository, not just Pharo. For Monticello based Smalltalks (Squeak > and Pharo) for the start but with vision to include all Smalltalk > repositories in the future, including as old as Smalltalk Goodies from > 90's. > > Nicolas just forgot to post announcement here too. Remember also that > Nico is now developing mainly on GNU Smalltalk... > > Best regards > Janko > > On 07. 04. 2011 16:29, Chris Cunnington wrote: >> Copied from the Pharo-project list: >> >> >> "Hi, >> >> We've been working on a new code repository& project management >> application for Smalltalk with ESUG named SmalltalkHub. >> >> If everything goes fine, the app should be in public beta in a week. >> The source code of SmalltalkHub will be available at the same moment >> (the project itself is hosted by SmalltalkHub). >> >> Here's a screenshot in the meantime. >> http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html >> >> Cheers, >> Nicolas > > -- > Janko Mivšek > Aida/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
On 2011/04/07 15:29, Chris Cunnington wrote:
> Copied from the Pharo-project list: > > > "Hi, > > We've been working on a new code repository& project management > application for Smalltalk with ESUG named SmalltalkHub. > > If everything goes fine, the app should be in public beta in a week. > The source code of SmalltalkHub will be available at the same moment > (the project itself is hosted by SmalltalkHub). > > Here's a screenshot in the meantime. > http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html I'm all for new stuff, but wouldn't it have been more logical to back Max Leske's FSGit work, so we could use other people's efforts? It just seems a no-brainer to me to write Monticello<->git interworkings and get GitHub For Free(tm). It seems a perennial problem in our community that we have to reinvent the wheel instead of making our tools interoperate with what's already out there. frank |
|
|
Also a great point. Let's totally do both! If there's a bijective mapping between the two representations, we can keep using MC to collaborate where it makes sense, and use Git where it's preferable.
On Apr 7, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2011/04/07 15:29, Chris Cunnington wrote: >> Copied from the Pharo-project list: >> >> >> "Hi, >> >> We've been working on a new code repository& project management >> application for Smalltalk with ESUG named SmalltalkHub. >> >> If everything goes fine, the app should be in public beta in a week. >> The source code of SmalltalkHub will be available at the same moment >> (the project itself is hosted by SmalltalkHub). >> >> Here's a screenshot in the meantime. >> http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html > > I'm all for new stuff, but wouldn't it have been more logical to back Max Leske's FSGit work, so we could use other people's efforts? It just seems a no-brainer to me to write Monticello<->git interworkings and get GitHub For Free(tm). > > It seems a perennial problem in our community that we have to reinvent the wheel instead of making our tools interoperate with what's already out there. > > frank > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Frank Shearar
<[hidden email]> wrote: > I'm all for new stuff, but wouldn't it have been more logical to back Max > Leske's FSGit work, so we could use other people's efforts? It just seems a > no-brainer to me to write Monticello<->git interworkings and get GitHub For > Free(tm). > > It seems a perennial problem in our community that we have to reinvent the > wheel instead of making our tools interoperate with what's already out > there. I agree with your premises, but not the conclusion. It's true, Max's work is great. Yes, we do spend a lot of energy writing our own tools rather than reusing what's out there. The thing is, I don't think putting Smalltalk code on Github would actually be useful. Github is deeply oriented to versioning files. Sure, it's possible to map Smalltalk code into files, but there's always an impedance mismatch there, and file-oriented tools tend not to be good for working with Smalltalk code. If all you want is a remote server that you can push to and pull from, ok, that would probably work. But Github, the web app, is probably less useful. We'll see what SmalltalkHub is like, but I have much higher hopes for that than something based on git. Colin |
|
|
What are file oriented tools good for anyway ?
It reminds me some ROOM 101 blog too much :) "Files are extremely important in current computing experience. Much too important. Files should be put in their place; they should be put away." please reread http://gbracha.blogspot.com/2010/02/nail-files.html it's always a pleasure ! Thanks Gilad. Nicolas 2011/4/7 Colin Putney <[hidden email]>: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Frank Shearar > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> I'm all for new stuff, but wouldn't it have been more logical to back Max >> Leske's FSGit work, so we could use other people's efforts? It just seems a >> no-brainer to me to write Monticello<->git interworkings and get GitHub For >> Free(tm). >> >> It seems a perennial problem in our community that we have to reinvent the >> wheel instead of making our tools interoperate with what's already out >> there. > > I agree with your premises, but not the conclusion. It's true, Max's > work is great. Yes, we do spend a lot of energy writing our own tools > rather than reusing what's out there. > > The thing is, I don't think putting Smalltalk code on Github would > actually be useful. Github is deeply oriented to versioning files. > Sure, it's possible to map Smalltalk code into files, but there's > always an impedance mismatch there, and file-oriented tools tend not > to be good for working with Smalltalk code. If all you want is a > remote server that you can push to and pull from, ok, that would > probably work. But Github, the web app, is probably less useful. We'll > see what SmalltalkHub is like, but I have much higher hopes for that > than something based on git. > > Colin > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
Er, well, file based tools don't work well for Smalltalk code because our fileout format isn't meant to be edited by humans. It doesn't have to be this way. Look at GNU Smalltalk. Files work fine there because there's support for them...
On Apr 7, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Frank Shearar > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> I'm all for new stuff, but wouldn't it have been more logical to back Max >> Leske's FSGit work, so we could use other people's efforts? It just seems a >> no-brainer to me to write Monticello<->git interworkings and get GitHub For >> Free(tm). >> >> It seems a perennial problem in our community that we have to reinvent the >> wheel instead of making our tools interoperate with what's already out >> there. > > I agree with your premises, but not the conclusion. It's true, Max's > work is great. Yes, we do spend a lot of energy writing our own tools > rather than reusing what's out there. > > The thing is, I don't think putting Smalltalk code on Github would > actually be useful. Github is deeply oriented to versioning files. > Sure, it's possible to map Smalltalk code into files, but there's > always an impedance mismatch there, and file-oriented tools tend not > to be good for working with Smalltalk code. If all you want is a > remote server that you can push to and pull from, ok, that would > probably work. But Github, the web app, is probably less useful. We'll > see what SmalltalkHub is like, but I have much higher hopes for that > than something based on git. > > Colin > |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Casey Ransberger
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Er, well, file based tools don't work well for Smalltalk code because our fileout format isn't meant to be edited by humans. It doesn't have to be this way. Look at GNU Smalltalk. Files work fine there because there's support for them... Well, you could invent a new syntax and a system for dealing with code in files, sure. The Pharo folks are doing that with Coral. But that goes far beyond what Frank proposed, and it's probably more work than writing SmalltalkHub. Besides, who wants to write Smalltalk code in emacs? Colin |
|
|
On 2011/04/07 20:19, Colin Putney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Casey Ransberger > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Er, well, file based tools don't work well for Smalltalk code because our fileout format isn't meant to be edited by humans. It doesn't have to be this way. Look at GNU Smalltalk. Files work fine there because there's support for them... > > Well, you could invent a new syntax and a system for dealing with code > in files, sure. The Pharo folks are doing that with Coral. But that > goes far beyond what Frank proposed, and it's probably more work than > writing SmalltalkHub. Besides, who wants to write Smalltalk code in > emacs? *cough*. Me. OK, I want to be _able_ to. For instance, I'd like to be able to bang out a Smalltalk script as easily as I can a Ruby one, with all the interoperability that implies (piping to and from other utilities, for instance), and in particular, do so without pulling a 20-30MB image. The main thing is that time and again we waste our time writing our own implementations of things, when surely we have better things to do? (I can provide a long list... :) ) frank |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Shearar
<[hidden email]> wrote: > *cough*. Me. OK, I want to be _able_ to. For instance, I'd like to be able > to bang out a Smalltalk script as easily as I can a Ruby one, with all the > interoperability that implies (piping to and from other utilities, for > instance), and in particular, do so without pulling a 20-30MB image. Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's basically Smalltalk in files. > The main thing is that time and again we waste our time writing our own > implementations of things, when surely we have better things to do? (I can > provide a long list... :) ) Is "Ruby" on the list? :-P Colin |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
On 2011-04-07 2:53 PM, Colin Putney wrote:
> Sure, it's possible to map Smalltalk code into files, but there's > always an impedance mismatch there, and file-oriented tools tend not > to be good for working with Smalltalk code. Agreed. With that said, I have an experiment in Squeak<-->Git versioning visible here: http://vapour.eighty-twenty.org/gitweb/?p=squeakgit.git;a=tree It's not a perfect mapping, but it feels reasonable. Perhaps others can suggest improvements. The code itself is both in Git (at the above URL) and in MC on SqueakSource, http://www.squeaksource.com/Git.html . To get a feel for it, check out GitSynchronizer class>>test and GitSynchronizer>>commit, in the GitCode package. Regards, Tony |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Putney <[hidden email]> writes:
Colin> Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's Colin> basically Smalltalk in files. And ruby is a nice prototype for Perl 6, which is just around the corner now. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
On 2011/04/07 21:13, Colin Putney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Shearar > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> *cough*. Me. OK, I want to be _able_ to. For instance, I'd like to be able >> to bang out a Smalltalk script as easily as I can a Ruby one, with all the >> interoperability that implies (piping to and from other utilities, for >> instance), and in particular, do so without pulling a 20-30MB image. > > Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's > basically Smalltalk in files. Yes, but Ruby's also greasy. >> The main thing is that time and again we waste our time writing our own >> implementations of things, when surely we have better things to do? (I can >> provide a long list... :) ) > > Is "Ruby" on the list? :-P Nah. I just want to be able to show colleagues that they can get the ease of using Ruby without all the gunk. frank |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
It would reduce the culture shock for people coming from other languages, I think. I don't think you need a new syntax really, just an EDSL.
On Apr 7, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Colin Putney <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Casey Ransberger > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Er, well, file based tools don't work well for Smalltalk code because our fileout format isn't meant to be edited by humans. It doesn't have to be this way. Look at GNU Smalltalk. Files work fine there because there's support for them... > > Well, you could invent a new syntax and a system for dealing with code > in files, sure. The Pharo folks are doing that with Coral. But that > goes far beyond what Frank proposed, and it's probably more work than > writing SmalltalkHub. Besides, who wants to write Smalltalk code in > emacs? > > Colin > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Randal L. Schwartz
Almost there... (stay in target!) almost there...
On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:25 PM, [hidden email] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote: >>>>>> "Colin" == Colin Putney <[hidden email]> writes: > > Colin> Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's > Colin> basically Smalltalk in files. > > And ruby is a nice prototype for Perl 6, which is just around the corner now. > > -- > Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 > <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> > Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. > See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On 07. 04. 2011 22:40, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> It would reduce the culture shock for people coming from other languages, I think. I don't think you need a new syntax really, just an EDSL. Did you notice that SmalltalkHub graphical design looks pretty similar to GitHub? http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html This can also ease the culture shock for people from other communities, IMHO. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
Explaining Ourselves (was Re: [squeak-dev] SmalltalkHub)
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar
I want this too. Too many Rubyists haven't interacted with their history much. I know because I was among them. Hell, I was also into Obj-C and didn't know where my roots were. Someone had to shout at me over beers to get me to open up my eyes, he said "This stuff isn't new! Look at Smalltalk!"
Less than a year later I got to ship Squeak. It's a shame that there's so much in the way for new comers. Having to learn a whole IDE is bad enough, but having to give up the warm familiar SCM seems to have been a real deal breaker for folks I've pitched e.g. Seaside to. While I was compelled to learn by the mystery of this thirty year old system that did all my favorite programming tricks and then some, I think the obstacles are tall enough that a lot of people just pass us by. In general I think "learning to play well with others" will make the difference between a halo effect around Ruby/Rails driving people into our community, and starving for people to run the Board. On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 2011/04/07 21:13, Colin Putney wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Shearar >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> *cough*. Me. OK, I want to be _able_ to. For instance, I'd like to be able >>> to bang out a Smalltalk script as easily as I can a Ruby one, with all the >>> interoperability that implies (piping to and from other utilities, for >>> instance), and in particular, do so without pulling a 20-30MB image. >> >> Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's >> basically Smalltalk in files. > > Yes, but Ruby's also greasy. > >>> The main thing is that time and again we waste our time writing our own >>> implementations of things, when surely we have better things to do? (I can >>> provide a long list... :) ) >> >> Is "Ruby" on the list? :-P > > Nah. I just want to be able to show colleagues that they can get the ease of using Ruby without all the gunk. > > frank > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Cool man: a great deal of usability amounts to familiarity. Nice.
On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 07. 04. 2011 22:40, Casey Ransberger wrote: > >> It would reduce the culture shock for people coming from other languages, I think. I don't think you need a new syntax really, just an EDSL. > > Did you notice that SmalltalkHub graphical design looks pretty similar > to GitHub? > > http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/04/06/smalltalkhub-beta-in-a-week.html > > This can also ease the culture shock for people from other communities, > IMHO. > > Best regards > Janko > > > -- > Janko Mivšek > Aida/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney-3
Redline is also working on making the fileout format more human-friendly. Sean
Cheers,
Sean |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |