As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors
its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub. The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project". Any strenuous objections? frank |
On 18 May 2013 10:15, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors > its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github > for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build > scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub. > > The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing > we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project". > > Any strenuous objections? Just to prevent dark forces preventing us fulfilling our glorious destiny, I've taken the liberty of reserving the name. Let the discussion continue! frank |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Frank Shearar wrote:
> As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors > its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github > for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build > scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub. > > The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing > we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project". > > Any strenuous objections? I'd use squeak-smalltalk, because Squeak is definitely not a project. Levente > > frank > > |
On 19 May 2013 15:49, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013, Frank Shearar wrote: > >> As usual Camillo Bruni is several steps ahead of me. Pharo 3.0 mirrors >> its source code to GitHub nowadays. In particular, "my" use of github >> for the build scripts is really "our" use of github for the build >> scripts, so we should have our own Organization on GitHub. >> >> The user/organisation name "squeak" is already taken, so I'm proposing >> we/I register an organisation called "squeak-project". >> >> Any strenuous objections? > > > I'd use squeak-smalltalk, because Squeak is definitely not a project. Well, "project" has a broader meaning than that given it by programmers. How about "squeak-software"? While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. It was, after all, intended to be a vehicle to bring _other_ things int existence. It's just that Smalltalk, like Lisp, is particularly good at eating its own children. frank > Levente > >> >> frank >> >> > |
On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote: > While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we > ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. You believe this??? Edgar |
On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we >> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. > > You believe this??? Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" 15 years and older. But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been called. frank > Edgar > > > |
Frank,
> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you > mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, > then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" > 15 years and older. While to many people "Smalltalk" is the same as "Smalltalk-80", I prefer a definition what includes Smalltalk-72 as a Smalltalk. Any such definition would most certainly include Self and Slate as Smalltalks too. Sort of like the confusion about "Free Software", I got tired of explaining my viewpoint regarding my Self/R design and simply renamed it to Neo Smalltalk instead. I do note that none of the various SqueakFests were about Squeak but rather about Etoys. So I agree that "Squeak Smalltalk" (which happens to be the term I use in all my papers) makes exactly what we are talking about very clear without restricting any future options. There was a time when the term "Smalltalk" caused very negative reactions and several projects tried to distance themselves from it. But that was when Java was new and needed agressive marketing. I feel that the current situation is entirely different. -- Jecel |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
Also, if somebody is looking for us, the name "squeak-smalltalk" is going to give them confidence that they've found the right thing. With "squeak-project" there's more room for doubt.
Colin |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
On 19-05-2013 17:36, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> Frank, > >> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you >> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, >> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" >> 15 years and older. > While to many people "Smalltalk" is the same as "Smalltalk-80", I prefer > a definition what includes Smalltalk-72 as a Smalltalk. Any such > definition would most certainly include Self and Slate as Smalltalks > too. > > Sort of like the confusion about "Free Software", I got tired of > explaining my viewpoint regarding my Self/R design and simply renamed it > to Neo Smalltalk instead. > > I do note that none of the various SqueakFests were about Squeak but > rather about Etoys. So I agree that "Squeak Smalltalk" (which happens to > be the term I use in all my papers) makes exactly what we are talking > about very clear without restricting any future options. > > There was a time when the term "Smalltalk" caused very negative > reactions and several projects tried to distance themselves from it. But > that was when Java was new and needed agressive marketing. I feel that > the current situation is entirely different. > > -- Jecel > > > arguments presented by Jecel. One fact about smalltalk is that it was plagued by fragmentation. The lack of a mainstream favored the appearance of several "smalltalk idioms" that quite don't talk among themselves. That reduced applicability and made disrupting advancements hard to achieve. So, currently we have some commercial idioms that are simply too proprietary & expensive for general use and some free software implementations that are becoming too widely fragmented to allow coherent evolution. Squeak is a really great platform. But currently is supported by a small community and important issues just cannot be covered. After the schism, at least two other versions of "baby squeaks" appeared. One is dealt by a single developer. I hope him the best luck in the world. The other is supported by some academic researchers that decided to reinvent the wheel while designing the next thing in OOL and the result is something that is just not stable and consistent in one hand and don't touch important things already achieved by other OOLs in the other hand. So, IMHO, current state of affairs is bleak at best. Just to be synced with current hardware and OS technologies, one important thing would be having squeak working fully 64bits and multithreaded. It happens that cog is not 64 bits and it seems it cannot be easily made so. The standard VM can be compiled 64 bits (64bit VM) but image is still 32bit. Worse than that, multithreading is hard to achieve. And simply there are not enough people to take care of these issues. Supposing multithreading could be achieved, then distributed objects (objects running in loosely coupled computer architectures) would become important. But IMHO it is just centuries ahead of what can be done today. Best regards, CdAB |
In reply to this post by Edgar De Cleene
I do. Any engine of its own invention is at risk of eventually evolving beyond the present paradigm. It's a feature, not a bug!
:D On May 19, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we >> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. > > You believe this??? > > Edgar > > > |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it.
Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:) On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we >>> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. >> >> You believe this??? > > Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you > mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, > then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" > 15 years and older. > > But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for > "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been > called. > > frank > >> Edgar >> >> >> > |
In reply to this post by CdAB63
Inline...
On May 19, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 19-05-2013 17:36, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: >> Frank, >> >>> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you >>> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, >>> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" >>> 15 years and older. >> While to many people "Smalltalk" is the same as "Smalltalk-80", I prefer >> a definition what includes Smalltalk-72 as a Smalltalk. Any such >> definition would most certainly include Self and Slate as Smalltalks >> too. >> >> Sort of like the confusion about "Free Software", I got tired of >> explaining my viewpoint regarding my Self/R design and simply renamed it >> to Neo Smalltalk instead. >> >> I do note that none of the various SqueakFests were about Squeak but >> rather about Etoys. So I agree that "Squeak Smalltalk" (which happens to >> be the term I use in all my papers) makes exactly what we are talking >> about very clear without restricting any future options. >> >> There was a time when the term "Smalltalk" caused very negative >> reactions and several projects tried to distance themselves from it. But >> that was when Java was new and needed agressive marketing. I feel that >> the current situation is entirely different. >> >> -- Jecel >> >> >> > I tend to agree with Frank about adherence to old standards & with all > arguments presented by Jecel. Someone should support the broad majority of Smalltalk code. Between Squeak and Pharo, we have this, but agreeing on a set of "core" tests would help a lot IMHO. > One fact about smalltalk is that it was plagued by fragmentation. This is true, but so is the converse. It's a platform that makes it easy to venture into new territory. There's a point of view where this looks like the system's finest feature. > The lack of a mainstream favored the appearance of several "smalltalk > idioms" that quite don't talk among themselves. Truth. > That reduced applicability and made disrupting advancements hard to achieve. So, currently we have some commercial idioms that are simply too proprietary & expensive for general use and some free software implementations that > are becoming too widely fragmented to allow coherent evolution. I'm not sure I agree with this argument. I think coherent evolution is easier to do with small, tightly knit groups than with huge armies of commiters. The more cooks you have in the kitchen (and this is just my experience) the less coherent things get. OTOH, having rigorous scrutiny from a large community is *always* good. Maybe we're weaker than some communities in this regard. > Squeak is a really great platform. But currently is supported by a small > community and important issues just cannot be covered. This is also true, but a blanket statement. We should talk about the specifics. Drill down. Fill the gaps. > After the schism, > at least two other versions of "baby squeaks" appeared. One is dealt by > a single developer. I hope him the best luck in the world. Cuis is supported by a very small community of deeply passionate people, not a single developer. Saying that is like saying that Squeak was dealt exclusively by Andreas Raab when he had the most commits. In other words: what am I, chopped liver? :) > The other is > supported by some academic researchers that decided to reinvent the > wheel while designing the next thing in OOL and the result is something > that is just not stable and consistent in one hand and don't touch > important things already achieved by other OOLs in the other hand. Stef and company deserve some credit for the things they have done well. The Pharo community has my complete support. It took me awhile to come to this point of view, but I'm there now. That said, Pharo has a totally different set of goals from mine about half of the time. I like to use it for Seaside and the (lovely) PetitParser, but that's about it. Most of the fun oogly-eye morphs only load in Squeak! And I want more fun in general ASAP. If Edgar is listening: when's the next Fun Squeak? > So, > IMHO, current state of affairs is bleak at best. Book recommendation: The Soul of a New Machine (Tracy Kidder.) Adversity can in some cases bring out the absolute best in people. Yes, bleakness is scary and sucks. Being wrapped up in that is demoralizing, though, so I say: look at the adversity as a challenge. As a blessing. > Just to be synced with current hardware and OS technologies, one > important thing would be having squeak working fully 64bits and > multithreaded. Sure, but I'd rather be able to JIT on the cheaper ARM SoCs. Then I could conceivably build a decent interrim Dyna-Book/Phone. Slap a Pixel Qi display behind a capacitive screen on a battery-backed Pi-B with a wifi module slotted in one of the USB ports and call that the new baseline for a usable programming environment. Touch UI pending:) > It happens that cog is not 64 bits and it seems it cannot > be easily made so. It's just work that needs doing. If we really needed it, I mean asteroid-plummeting-to-earth needed it *right now* I'm pretty sure that this group of people might be able to raise the funds to pay one of these people I know on the Internet who know how to handle this kind of thing and get it done *right.* *cough* Eliot *cough* We just need to get organized and raise the cash. > The standard VM can be compiled 64 bits (64bit VM) > but image is still 32bit. This part is a bit confusing, admittedly. > Worse than that, multithreading is hard to > achieve. And simply there are not enough people to take care of these > issues. Supposing multithreading could be achieved, then distributed > objects (objects running in loosely coupled computer architectures) > would become important. But IMHO it is just centuries ahead of what can > be done today. CogMT is heading down this way. RoarVM explored the many core approach, and (I) learned some stuff from that experiment. I'm excited to see what might be done with Jecel's Silicon Squeak project. > Best regards, > > CdAB Overall, I feel your fears. But I think we'll do better if we keep our spirits high and sing while we make the objections go away! Cheers, Casey |
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
Since the score's currently {squeak-smalltalk: 3 squeak-project: 0} (I
changed my mind - today, it's more important to let people find us), I've renamed the organisation to "squeak-smalltalk". I must stress that this can be changed; I'm squatting the name until the community rejects it. (Now if I could just see some commits in proportion to the amount of bikeshedding I'd be even happier! (*)) frank (*) Not that there's been a huge amount of bikeshed. I remain in hope/horror. On 20 May 2013 06:40, Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> wrote: > And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it. > > Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:) > > On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we >>>> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. >>> >>> You believe this??? >> >> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you >> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, >> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" >> 15 years and older. >> >> But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for >> "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been >> called. >> >> frank >> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >> > |
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On 5/20/13 3:34 AM, "Casey Ransberger" <[hidden email]> wrote: > If Edgar is listening: when's the next Fun Squeak? I listening But most important is a Squeak Core and Squeak Kernel, following Pavel advice. By the way just now I toying with Node.js and the several things I need to know for doing simple things. Also I download the entire Squeak Swiki , and have a HV2 + CSS , etc powered blog/wiki, still in alpha but when I return home send url for feedback. Edgar |
In reply to this post by CdAB63
Casimiro,
just a quick comment on > One fact about smalltalk is that it was plagued by fragmentation. Though that is very true, it was typical of the time in which it was created. Fortran and Cobol were the old languages that resisted fragmentation the most, but even they had too much variation by today's standards. If you look at Lisp, Forth, Pascal, APL and so on you will see that Smalltalk was pretty uniform in comparison, mostly due to the Blue Book being a reference even for people (like me) who did their own Smalltalks from scratch. With the Internet and Free Software in the 1990s we get one implementation languages like Ruby, Lua, Tcl, Io and others. Even more fragmented stuff like Python, Javascript and Java are more uniform that Fortran and Cobol were. It is a pity that the idea of making Smalltalk-80 a standard by separating the image from the virtual machine didn't pan out because it wasn't clear to interested people how to get the stuff from Xerox. From what one person told me decades later, it wasn't free (except for Apple, DEC, Tektronix, HP and Berkeley) but it was very affordable. -- Jecel |
In reply to this post by Casey Ransberger-2
On 20-05-2013 03:34, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>> After the schism, >> at least two other versions of "baby squeaks" appeared. One is dealt by >> a single developer. I hope him the best luck in the world. > Cuis is supported by a very small community of deeply passionate people, not a single developer. Saying that is like saying that Squeak was dealt exclusively by Andreas Raab when he had the most commits. > > In other words: what am I, chopped liver? :) > > Reading it again, I noticed that the English translation does not map exactly on the Brazilian Portuguese idea it should transmit. Sounds like I meant some kind of irony. That's not the case. Regarding Cuis its idea (which I enjoy) I really hope Cuis community the best luck in world (as in "espero que os caras se deêm bem"). My concern is that the community is small and at some point will need some energy to break through the "Fermi barrier of complexity". CdAB signature.asc (271 bytes) Download Attachment |
In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3
* https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/
* https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/squeak-ci/ Note that any existing references to https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you to squeak-ci's new home. frank On 20 May 2013 10:25, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > Since the score's currently {squeak-smalltalk: 3 squeak-project: 0} (I > changed my mind - today, it's more important to let people find us), > I've renamed the organisation to "squeak-smalltalk". > > I must stress that this can be changed; I'm squatting the name until > the community rejects it. > > (Now if I could just see some commits in proportion to the amount of > bikeshedding I'd be even happier! (*)) > > frank > > (*) Not that there's been a huge amount of bikeshed. I remain in hope/horror. > > On 20 May 2013 06:40, Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> wrote: >> And I second squeak-smalltalk if someone can nab it. >> >> Squeak is presently -- in my view anyway -- both a dialect and a family thereof. Spiritual and literal descendant thing more or less aside:) >> >> On May 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> On 19 May 2013 20:17, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/19/13 2:11 PM, "Frank Shearar" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> While Squeak may be a Smalltalk now, I don't particularly think we >>>>> ought to suggest that it will _always_ be a Smalltalk. >>>> >>>> You believe this??? >>> >>> Well, OK. It depends on what exactly you mean by "Smalltalk". If you >>> mean Smalltalk-80, then definitely not. If you mean ANSI Smalltalk, >>> then probably not. I don't see much value in sticking to "standards" >>> 15 years and older. >>> >>> But let's stick to the name. I can see a pretty strong argument for >>> "squeak-smalltalk" simply because that's what we've always been >>> called. >>> >>> frank >>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> |
On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/ > * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/squeak-ci/ > > Note that any existing references to > https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will > now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you > to squeak-ci's new home. I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so he's the only one I've volunteered. frank |
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:33:26PM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote:
> On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: > > * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/ > > * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/squeak-ci/ > > > > Note that any existing references to > > https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will > > now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you > > to squeak-ci's new home. > > I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation > (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so > he's the only one I've volunteered. > > frank I am dtlewis290 on github. Thanks, Dave |
On 23 May 2013 14:39, David T. Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:33:26PM +0100, Frank Shearar wrote: >> On 22 May 2013 14:46, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/ >> > * https://github.com/squeak-smalltalk/squeak-ci/ >> > >> > Note that any existing references to >> > https://github.com/frankshearar/squeak-ci/ are safe; this link will >> > now automatically (thanks to the awesome power of GitHub) redirect you >> > to squeak-ci's new home. >> >> I forgot to add: if you want membership in the GitHub organisation >> (and you KNOW you do), let me know. I only know Bert's github ID, so >> he's the only one I've volunteered. >> >> frank > > I am dtlewis290 on github. Done! frank > Thanks, > Dave > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |