Xtreams , Ometa and related

> Hi Phil,
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 2:26 pm, Phil (list) wrote:
> > Juan,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 13:11 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/20/2015 4:37 AM, Phil (list) wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 00:02 -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Are you arguing for restoring compiler indirection in Cuis?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a trade off either way. But I agree having it in the core of
> >>>> the system would be worthwhile for language researchers.
> >>>>
> >>> I'm in favor of it but I may be in the minority on this.  If feels
> >>> like a trade off of extensibility in favor of minimalism.
> >>
> >> Minimalism should be to empower us, not to impair us. Removing this was
> >>  a mistake.
> >>
> >> Please try the attached. If it's ok, it will be in the next commit.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This is fantastic news!  I tried the changesets against 2330 but there
> > still appear to be some direct calls left (around 2 dozen... filein failed
> > on PositionableStream #fileInAnnouncing:)  I *believe* pretty much every
> > reference to Compiler needs to be replaced with compilerClass for class of
> > the method being compiled/compiled for (i.e. the caller).
> >
> >> Cheers,
> >> Juan Vuletich
> >>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
>
> I did as follow:
> 1) start Cuis 2330
> 2) Open file list
> 3) click on 2331
> 4) click on [install]
> 5) click on 2332
> 6) click on [install]
> and got no error messages. Please detail what you did, and what error you
> get.
>

> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 15:33 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 2:26 pm, Phil (list) wrote:
>>
>>> Juan,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 13:11 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/20/2015 4:37 AM, Phil (list) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 00:02 -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you arguing for restoring compiler indirection in Cuis?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a trade off either way. But I agree having it in the
>>>>>> core of the system would be worthwhile for language researchers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in favor of it but I may be in the minority on this.  If
>>>>> feels like a trade off of extensibility in favor of minimalism.
>>>>
>>>> Minimalism should be to empower us, not to impair us. Removing this
>>>> was a mistake.
>>>>
>>>> Please try the attached. If it's ok, it will be in the next commit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is fantastic news!  I tried the changesets against 2330 but
>>> there still appear to be some direct calls left (around 2 dozen...
>>> filein failed on PositionableStream #fileInAnnouncing:)  I *believe*
>>> pretty much every reference to Compiler needs to be replaced with
>>> compilerClass for class of the method being compiled/compiled for
>>> (i.e. the caller).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Juan Vuletich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phil
>>>
>>
>> I did as follow:
>> 1) start Cuis 2330
>> 2) Open file list
>> 3) click on 2331
>> 4) click on [install]
>> 5) click on 2332
>> 6) click on [install]
>> and got no error messages. Please detail what you did, and what error
>> you get.
>>
>
> 1) perform the steps above
> 2) pull down the OMeta*.st files from my repo
> (https://github.com/pbella/Cuis-Ports)
> 3) filein in sequence.  You should see the error on OMeta2-stage2b.st.

> On Wed, May 20, 2015 4:12 pm, Phil (list) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 15:33 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Phil,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 20, 2015 2:26 pm, Phil (list) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Juan,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 13:11 -0300, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/20/2015 4:37 AM, Phil (list) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 00:02 -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you arguing for restoring compiler indirection in Cuis?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's a trade off either way. But I agree having it in the
> >>>>>> core of the system would be worthwhile for language researchers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm in favor of it but I may be in the minority on this.  If
> >>>>> feels like a trade off of extensibility in favor of minimalism.
> >>>>
> >>>> Minimalism should be to empower us, not to impair us. Removing this
> >>>> was a mistake.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please try the attached. If it's ok, it will be in the next commit.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This is fantastic news!  I tried the changesets against 2330 but
> >>> there still appear to be some direct calls left (around 2 dozen...
> >>> filein failed on PositionableStream #fileInAnnouncing:)  I *believe*
> >>> pretty much every reference to Compiler needs to be replaced with
> >>> compilerClass for class of the method being compiled/compiled for
> >>> (i.e. the caller).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Juan Vuletich
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>
> >> I did as follow:
> >> 1) start Cuis 2330
> >> 2) Open file list
> >> 3) click on 2331
> >> 4) click on [install]
> >> 5) click on 2332
> >> 6) click on [install]
> >> and got no error messages. Please detail what you did, and what error
> >> you get.
> >>
> >
> > 1) perform the steps above
> > 2) pull down the OMeta*.st files from my repo
> > (https://github.com/pbella/Cuis-Ports)
> > 3) filein in sequence.  You should see the error on OMeta2-stage2b.st.
>
> Ok. That file contains a line that reads:
>
> ]style[(6 41 26 95 56 16 27 17
> 257)bcblack;,cblack;,f0,cblack;,f0cblack;,f0,f0cblack;,f0,f0cblack;!
>
> This is the Squeak syntax for embedding text styles in code. Cuis does not
> support this. If I remove this line and try again, I get a compilation
> error from OMeta2Compiler... This is in your side now.
>

> Hi Folks,
>
> On 5/20/2015 4:37 AM, Phil (list) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 00:02 -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> >> Are you arguing for restoring compiler indirection in Cuis?
> >>
> >> That's a trade off either way. But I agree having it in the core of the system would be worthwhile for language researchers.
> >>
> > I'm in favor of it but I may be in the minority on this.  If feels like
> > a trade off of extensibility in favor of minimalism.
>
> Minimalism should be to empower us, not to impair us. Removing this was
> a mistake.
>
> Please try the attached. If it's ok, it will be in the next commit.
>

> Below
>
>> On May 20, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Juan Vuletich<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>> Minimalism should be to empower us, not to impair us. Removing this was a mistake.
> I *really* like this statement. I've moved into a new home, and basically everything about it follows this kind of thinking. I really enjoy large, open spaces. Cuis gave me that in a Smalltalk. Just very little clutter.
>
> But when I look around at my space, I see objects of utility. There is a guitar that I use to make music. A bed that I sleep on. A computer that does all kinds of things for me. One light. A piece of luggage full of clothes. A record player and two plastic crates full of records. A device that imitates many of the video game systems I loved as a child, and some cartridges for it. A good bowler hat. Some dusty books.
>
> Letting go of any of these things could be really crippling. When pursuing a minimal/ascetic lifestyle (and let's just admit it, Smalltalk is almost a lifestyle, or rather a continuum of lifestyles) it's risky to give things up. The closer you get to "only what you absolutely need" the more risky it is to give away your guitar.

> Inline
>
> On 5/23/2015 7:29 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> > Below
> >
> >> On May 20, 2015, at 9:11 AM, Juan Vuletich<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Minimalism should be to empower us, not to impair us. Removing this was a mistake.
> > I *really* like this statement. I've moved into a new home, and basically everything about it follows this kind of thinking. I really enjoy large, open spaces. Cuis gave me that in a Smalltalk. Just very little clutter.
> >
> > But when I look around at my space, I see objects of utility. There is a guitar that I use to make music. A bed that I sleep on. A computer that does all kinds of things for me. One light. A piece of luggage full of clothes. A record player and two plastic crates full of records. A device that imitates many of the video game systems I loved as a child, and some cartridges for it. A good bowler hat. Some dusty books.
> >
> > Letting go of any of these things could be really crippling. When pursuing a minimal/ascetic lifestyle (and let's just admit it, Smalltalk is almost a lifestyle, or rather a continuum of lifestyles) it's risky to give things up. The closer you get to "only what you absolutely need" the more risky it is to give away your guitar.
>
> Yes!
>
> > I think that compiler indirection is *immensely* useful, because it lets us play with language. Even if all you're doing is a really funny pun, no one would get to have that laugh if it wasn't painless to drop in a new compiler.
> >
> > Thinking of Andreas Raab's Smalltalk port of the Python thing that let you code in Broheim or Valley Girl. He did it in like seriously OMG Becky, several lines of code.
>
> Oh, please explain this. Looks like there is something below all that
> slang :)
>

> > As a clean platform, Cuis is very attractive to me (a guy who likes playing with language) and we've had a port of PetitParser for some time. Sounds like we have OMeta working now too, and I'm overjoyed about that.
> >
> > Compiler indirection gives people who like to play with language a really easy way to drop in a new language without destabilizing the rest of the system. For this reason, I'd like to express my support for restoring indirection to our little Zen garden.
> >
> > --C
>
> Thanks Casey.
> Juan Vuletich
>
> Ps. Get well soon!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org

> 'Valley Girl' and, I believe 'Broheim', are essentially linguistic
> caricatures of of inane American cultural stereotypes.  I warn you the
> links that follow will waste 4 minutes of your life...
>
> Some examples of English to Valley Girl translation (not a great
> example, but you get the idea):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81IZDhXeJBk
>
> How to speak Valley Girl (a more general explanation):
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL6XBB-umc0
>
> Now, like, totally imagine programming in such a grody to the max
> language... gag me with a spoon!
>