Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

playground vs workspace

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

49 messages Options

123

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

Exactly!

This is precisely the way we should look at tools: we should identify why we need that tool, but not necessarily stick with the tool.

For example, people said a while ago that the Workspace is better than the Playground for searching for things like implementors. While that might have been the case at that time, I think that use case is better served by the now existing Spotter.

It is important to understand the goal and not focus at the implementation. This is the prerequisite for inventing something new. That is why I keep on asking stupid questions like: "Why do you need this?" "When do you need this?"

Coming back to your point, I think that "note tracker" is one of the last use cases people use a Workspace for. I find this very interesting even if I do not necessarily have this requirement for myself. I think at the moment we can keep a renamed Workspace for that, but in the future we will probably end up with something else. The use case is noted in my book :)

Cheers,

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM, stepharo <[hidden email]> wrote:

Le 8/12/14 05:43, stepharo a écrit :

Hi doru

I would like to have playground be named playground and that we keep "workspace" but I would like to change the name to "SimpleNoteEditor".

Why because this is always good to have simple tools to read from? (I'm not talking about the current workspace implementation but the new one).
I would like even try to learn something from Playground implementation because the tools is more advanced while I'm not afraid to learn
from a simple tool.

I do not like the idea that we are all forced to use one single tools. We are adults.

Stef

Hi,

As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.

This is not the intention of the workspace.

Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.

Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.

It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Doru

--

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess

Hi,

Please look at the mail I sent to Torsten for a more thorough description of my reasoning. For example, I do not like that it implies that this is *the* place where work happens, and this is clearly not the case.

Yes, I use the playground extensively for so many use cases. I do not miss the Workspace at all and I do not use it since 2 years.

Cheers,

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Nicolai Hess <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Doru,

I do not understand exactly what the difference is or why you wouldn't call GTPlayground " a Workspace".

As I think you are using GTPlayground very extensively:
Do YOU use the Workspace at all ?
Do YOU miss something in GTPlayground, where you would say: "Yes, only a workspace should do this".

Nicolai

2014-12-08 7:18 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
Hi,

As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.

This is not the intention of the workspace.

Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.

Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.

It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Hi Sven,

Thanks for the kind words.

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:

More documentation is always better, but you can hardly accuse Doru from trying, he is making an excellent effort in explaining what he does and why, this is a lot of work, and I appreciate it very much. Note that he is also trying to convince others of alternative/new/experimental ideas, which is even harder.

And apart from that, he (and his team) are not just talking, they write actual working code and make it available. Of course they get all sorts of feedback, that is why they do it, but please, please consider the amount of work and determination it costs to make all this real/useable and not just vapourware !

I have the utmost respect for what they are doing and how they are doing it.

You (and other users) have a choice: you can keep using Pharo 3 and the tools there instead of going along with the development branch. Pharo 3 is meant for stable production use, it matches most of the current publications.

There is [hidden email] for normal beginner discussions, most users should ask questions there, not the other way around as it is today. I read both and try to help anyone the best I can.

Sven

> On 08 Dec 2014, at 13:56, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> "But, those tools are already added. And they are documented on the humane-assessment.com blog, and this can serve as a strong basis for a more official documentation."
>
> my issue is not "when" but "whether" . If you want to wait out the release of Pharo 4 to make official documentation, thats fine by me . I take late documentation over no documentation, any day.
>
> The problem I see with Pharo and one factor I feel it may even lead to the demise of Pharo as a project is that we see new and very exciting sfuff added to Pharo like your tools, but the documentation part is lackaster to say the least. The real problem comes when the original author decides to abandon or not further develop his tools it becomes extremely difficult for new people to come in and contribute. The very fact that now we replace the old workspace with a new tool is the testament to this problem. I think the situation would be dramatically different if Worskpace was fully documented, both at the user level and developer level. Its afterall an extremely important tool for Pharo. If that was the case we would have seen a natural evolution of workspace which would have made Playground far less needed.
>
> So its not that I disagree just with you I disagree with the general management of Pharo that follows the mentality "let the new features in and we worry about the documentation later on". No , no and NO!
>
> I was recently asked by a newcomer to Pharo being a python developer himself whether he should invest in Pharo . He wanted my opinion because I have experience both in python and pharo . I was not suprised to find out that he struggled with the documentation and he was really reluctant to give Pharo a serious try. He loved the features and all that but his learning was a much bigger pain than his experience with python and other programming languages. I ended up recommending him to ask more question here in the mailing list and he replied he did not feel comfortable asking question that for him were "stupid". Can I blame him ? Of course not. He was not aware of many of the blog posts and other source of documentation that are not "official".
>
> Dont know who that person is and how important as a member would become for the Pharo community but I can clearly see his problems being common to anyone or almost anyone introduced to Pharo unless that person comes already with a Smalltalk background.
>
> What I do know is Pharo needs new people to come in and take it further and in order to do that we need to build a Pharo that is as inviting to newcomers as our abilities permits us to. Putting documentation as a second priority is a recipe to disaster.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Torsten Bergmann

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

>And Playground would match so well the marketing term of "playing with live objects".

Sorry - but to me it looks like you were catched too much into: now we have to be more modern
or rival with all this "lively" stuff (Lighttable IDE, Apple Swift, ...). We all know
that being "lively" is something Smalltalk had already years ago and in the best way one
can do it.

>You might say that Playground is not the only place where people can play with objects, but

Same argument against Workspace is an argument against Playground then. Any reason
you did not continue after your "but"?

>Not all. Swift calls it Playground (yes, they copied us ;))

Because Swift uses this does mean ... (***drumrol***) ... NOTHING. Will we rename BlockClosures
to Closures now? Or introduce curly braces? ;)

>You are looking at it from a technical point of view. Yes, it's just a merge of two features,
>but it is the end experience that is so much different.

You said it yourself: we just present it differently. Nothing more. Does a concept really justify
a new name if only presented differently?

I really doubt! Otherwise we would have had to rename the concept of a "System Browser" anytime
we improved the end user experience (which differs also if you compare old style Squeak browsers
and new Nautilus implementation).

>That is why I think we have conceptually a different solution than we ever had.

I do not see where it is different now. Diving into object was alway possible with existing tools.

>>3. There is a "Workspace open" but no "Playground open" possibility.
> I think I do not get this point. What do you mean?

Evaluate

"Workspace open" => it opens a window

"Playground open" => not defined

>>4. Having two separate tools "Workspace" and "Playground" with nearly similar
>> goals (write scripts and inspect objects) would be confusing for newbees.
>>
>>Maybe we could set up a "community voting" somewhere.
>
>Perhaps.

If we would like to work as a community and respect other opinions it would
make sense.

So far I guess there are three options discussed:

a) Keep existing "Workspace" tool and add additional "Playground" tool
b) One tool with new name "Playground" (no workspace)
c) One tool with known name "Workspace" by renaming the Playground tool

>Good point! Can you add a bug issue for this?

https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14578/Ask-before-saving-in-the-cloud

Torsten Bergmann

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

Doru wrote:
>Please look at the mail I sent to Torsten for a more thorough description of my reasoning. For example, I do not like that >it implies that this is *the* place where work happens, and this is clearly not the case.

Think about your arguments. You mentioned that workspace is not the only place where to work.
One can work also in the debugger or in the browser.

Yes - but a playground is also not the only place where I play with objects. Some people love
to play with their objects in the debugger, browser, script manager, or elsewhere...

>Yes, I use the playground extensively for so many use cases. I do not miss the Workspace at all and I do
>not use it since 2 years.

Maybe because ... (***drumroll***) it is conceptually nothing more than an enhanced workspace.
Sorry could'nt resists ;)

I stand with my point: the playground is too close to the existing concept of a Workspace to deserve
a new name. At the opposite tools like "Spotter" really introduce something conceptually new.

Bye
T.

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Torsten Bergmann

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Torsten Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

>And Playground would match so well the marketing term of "playing with live objects".

Sorry - but to me it looks like you were catched too much into: now we have to be more modern
or rival with all this "lively" stuff (Lighttable IDE, Apple Swift, ...). We all know
that being "lively" is something Smalltalk had already years ago and in the best way one
can do it.

It's not. Smalltalk model is live, the ui has always been crappy. We have to catch up and stop pretending we are in front because we are not. We can be and we will be, but there is plenty of hard work in front of us.

>You might say that Playground is not the only place where people can play with objects, but

Same argument against Workspace is an argument against Playground then. Any reason
you did not continue after your "but"?

Sorry. Your mail was too long and I missed this one :). I wanted to say that people can play in the playground, but also play in other places. It is not the same with the usual meaning of work: work is done in the work place / work space.

>Not all. Swift calls it Playground (yes, they copied us ;))

Because Swift uses this does mean ... (***drumrol***) ... NOTHING. Will we rename BlockClosures
to Closures now? Or introduce curly braces? ;)

I did not say that. I simply said that not all environments use the term Workspace.

>You are looking at it from a technical point of view. Yes, it's just a merge of two features,
>but it is the end experience that is so much different.

You said it yourself: we just present it differently. Nothing more. Does a concept really justify
a new name if only presented differently?

It's not "just". It's key. It really is :). We have to stop being programmers for a second if we want to produce a proper user experience. Users do not care about what it takes technically. They care about their mental models. This is what has significantly changed.

I really doubt! Otherwise we would have had to rename the concept of a "System Browser" anytime
we improved the end user experience (which differs also if you compare old style Squeak browsers
and new Nautilus implementation).

Nautilus is a name of a specific system browser, not a concept. It never wanted to be anything else than a System Browser. Btw, the future coding solution will unlikely be called System Browser - :).

>That is why I think we have conceptually a different solution than we ever had.

I do not see where it is different now. Diving into object was alway possible with existing tools.

That is not the point. That's a technical detail. The fact that I can get several times faster in creating a visualization or in playing with a query script is what matters.

>>3. There is a "Workspace open" but no "Playground open" possibility.
> I think I do not get this point. What do you mean?

Evaluate

"Workspace open" => it opens a window

"Playground open" => not defined

It is defined:

GTPlayground open

Still, where does this argument fit?

>>4. Having two separate tools "Workspace" and "Playground" with nearly similar
>> goals (write scripts and inspect objects) would be confusing for newbees.
>>
>>Maybe we could set up a "community voting" somewhere.
>
>Perhaps.

If we would like to work as a community and respect other opinions it would
make sense.

I think this is what the mail was all about, was it not?

So far I guess there are three options discussed:

a) Keep existing "Workspace" tool and add additional "Playground" tool
b) One tool with new name "Playground" (no workspace)
c) One tool with known name "Workspace" by renaming the Playground tool

Sure. But, this makes some sense only after we have laid out arguments which is what we do right now.

>Good point! Can you add a bug issue for this?

https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/14578/Ask-before-saving-in-the-cloud

Thanks!

Doru

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Andreas Wacknitz

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

> Am 08.12.2014 um 07:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.
For me GTPlayground is a replacement of the workspace. At the moment this is obviously so: the workspace menu item has been replaced by the one for the Playground.
The term Workspace is widely known in the Smalltalk community. Don’t change the name just because you put some enhancements to it.

>
> This is not the intention of the workspace.
>
> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.
>
> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.
>
> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.
>
> What do you think?

I like the enhancements but I don’t like the new name. Only time will tell if the ideas of GTPlayground will be adapted by other Smalltalks and then it would be the right time to talk about a better name than workspace.

Regards
Andreas

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by abergel

Indeed :).

However, it is precisely those different opinions that are valuable even if it is uncomfortable for the one that proposes a new solution.

Cheers,

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:

This is amazing to see such many different opinions. For me, I would keep it innovative and breaking with its legacy. Playground for all! No more workspaces! And yeah, we will have to write new book about that. We are already working on this!

Cheers,
Alexandre

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.
>
> This is not the intention of the workspace.
>
> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.
>
> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.
>
> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Andreas Wacknitz

Hi Andreas,

With all due respect for the other Smalltalk (inspired or genuine) environments, I have no intention of waiting for them in order to define the way forward.

Our "battle" is with the non-Smalltalk world. This is what we need to convince. And that world does not care about the history of Smalltalk. It cares about how we can solve their problem. That's all.

Cheers,

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 08.12.2014 um 07:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.
For me GTPlayground is a replacement of the workspace. At the moment this is obviously so: the workspace menu item has been replaced by the one for the Playground.
The term Workspace is widely known in the Smalltalk community. Don’t change the name just because you put some enhancements to it.

>
> This is not the intention of the workspace.
>
> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.
>
> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.
>
> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.
>
> What do you think?
I like the enhancements but I don’t like the new name. Only time will tell if the ideas of GTPlayground will be adapted by other Smalltalks and then it would be the right time to talk about a better name than workspace.

Regards
Andreas

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Andreas Wacknitz

Re: playground vs workspace

> Am 08.12.2014 um 20:27 schrieb Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> With all due respect for the other Smalltalk (inspired or genuine) environments, I have no intention of waiting for them in order to define the way forward.
It’s not about respect for the other Smalltalk environments but for those who work sometimes outside the Pharo world. And you don’t have to wait for anybody. We are talking about the name and not the features.
As I said: the changes don’t justify a new name in my eyes. For me what you call GTPlayground is a better workspace than the original one. It will replace the workspace (in Pharo) for me
but it is still a workspace.

>
> Our "battle" is with the non-Smalltalk world. This is what we need to convince. And that world does not care about the history of Smalltalk. It cares about how we can solve their problem. That's all.
>
My experience is that the non-Smalltalk ignorant and GTPlayground, as good as it is, will not convince many people. It’s simply too low-level.

Regards
Andreas

> Cheers,
> Doru

Andreas Wacknitz

Re: playground vs workspace

> Am 08.12.2014 um 20:36 schrieb Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>> Am 08.12.2014 um 20:27 schrieb Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> With all due respect for the other Smalltalk (inspired or genuine) environments, I have no intention of waiting for them in order to define the way forward.
> It’s not about respect for the other Smalltalk environments but for those who work sometimes outside the Pharo world. And you don’t have to wait for anybody. We are talking about the name and not the features.
> As I said: the changes don’t justify a new name in my eyes. For me what you call GTPlayground is a better workspace than the original one. It will replace the workspace (in Pharo) for me
> but it is still a workspace.
>
>>
>> Our "battle" is with the non-Smalltalk world. This is what we need to convince. And that world does not care about the history of Smalltalk. It cares about how we can solve their problem. That's all.
>>
> My experience is that the non-Smalltalk ignorant and GTPlayground, as good as it is, will not convince many people. It’s simply too low-level.

Hm, I should have proof read this before hitting the send button: My experience is that the (non-Smalltalk) world is ignorant…

>
> Regards
> Andreas
>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>
>

hernanmd

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

Hello Doru,

I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, for better or worst.

The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese Felis Catus which is a specific breed.

On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" discussions.

Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever.

For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more implementations discriminated by its type.

Hernán

2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.

This is not the intention of the workspace.

Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.

Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.

It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

kilon.alios

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

"Our "battle" is with the non-Smalltalk world. This is what we need to convince. And that world does not care about the history of Smalltalk. It cares about how we can solve their problem. That's all."

But you already offer an impressive arsenal of tools. The world can complain for several things but what it cannot complain is that Pharo as an IDE is not really powerful as a whole. Your competition would be I assume specialised tools that come as third party. There is no IDE I know out there that offers the level of refactoring of Pharo, in terms of tools and libraries.

Also we should not forget that those tools are not just powerful as is the example of GTPlayground but are engineered in such way to cooperate which each other with ease. While on the other hand , tools for other programming languages are by default separate and independent and not necessarily play nice with each other which the price one pays to keep things modular and unattached to a specific language or IDE. So the way I see it Pharo already is beyond competition.

Unless of course you refer to a comparison tool per tool, which mean you take this pharo tool and you compare with another tool for another language out there. That case would very difficult for you because there are tons of development tools out there.

But the overall idea that is "hey there I give you a language, take this enviroment too, live coding, how about an IDE and also get these coding tools too " is really a dreamy situation already.

The question is how badly coders want a very powerful IDE at least the level of Pharo.

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

Hi,

We do not yet have an IDE (where I stands for integrated). We have a set of tools and some of them are quite strong. But, we do not have an overall experience yet.

Yes, the underlying language model does offer a beautiful experience, but the experience of the tools is far from that. We need tools that are not just powerful in the hands of few specialists, but tools that are beautiful and pleasurable to use in the hands of many. This is the goal.

When we will get that, I believe we will change the game.

Cheers,

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:36 PM, kilon alios <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Our "battle" is with the non-Smalltalk world. This is what we need to convince. And that world does not care about the history of Smalltalk. It cares about how we can solve their problem. That's all."

But you already offer an impressive arsenal of tools. The world can complain for several things but what it cannot complain is that Pharo as an IDE is not really powerful as a whole. Your competition would be I assume specialised tools that come as third party. There is no IDE I know out there that offers the level of refactoring of Pharo, in terms of tools and libraries.

Also we should not forget that those tools are not just powerful as is the example of GTPlayground but are engineered in such way to cooperate which each other with ease. While on the other hand , tools for other programming languages are by default separate and independent and not necessarily play nice with each other which the price one pays to keep things modular and unattached to a specific language or IDE. So the way I see it Pharo already is beyond competition.

Unless of course you refer to a comparison tool per tool, which mean you take this pharo tool and you compare with another tool for another language out there. That case would very difficult for you because there are tons of development tools out there.

But the overall idea that is "hey there I give you a language, take this enviroment too, live coding, how about an IDE and also get these coding tools too " is really a dreamy situation already.

The question is how badly coders want a very powerful IDE at least the level of Pharo.

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Tudor Girba-2

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by hernanmd

Hi everyone,

My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to disturb so many people with my infatuation.

At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many people look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment behind the effort.

I will stop responding to this thread now.

Thanks for the feedback.

Cheers,

Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Doru,

I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, for better or worst.

The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese Felis Catus which is a specific breed.

On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" discussions.

Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever.

For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more implementations discriminated by its type.

Hernán

2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.

This is not the intention of the workspace.

Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.

Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.

It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: playground vs workspace

> On 08 Dec 2014, at 22:53, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to disturb so many people with my infatuation.
>
> At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many people look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment behind the effort.
>
> I will stop responding to this thread now.

OK, fair enough, but please don't stop what you are doing ;-)

> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Doru,
>
> I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, for better or worst.
>
> The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese Felis Catus which is a specific breed.
>
> On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" discussions.
>
> Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever.
>
> For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more implementations discriminated by its type.
>
> Hernán
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.
>
> This is not the intention of the workspace.
>
> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.
>
> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.
>
> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"

Luc Fabresse

Re: playground vs workspace

2014-12-09 11:06 GMT+01:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]>:

> On 08 Dec 2014, at 22:53, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to disturb so many people with my infatuation.
>
> At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many people look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment behind the effort.
>
> I will stop responding to this thread now.

OK, fair enough, but please don't stop what you are doing ;-)

+1000

IMO, I do not care of the name.

Playground is good enough to me and Alex is right, next doc will be up to date.

GTTools are innovatives and we must push them for a better and nicer Pharo. Obviously, we should also take care of not loosing good stuff from the existing tools and it is not the case here between Workspace and Playground.

So thx Doru, and please keep pushing ;-)

Luc

> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Doru,
>
> I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, for better or worst.
>
> The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese Felis Catus which is a specific breed.
>
> On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" discussions.
>
> Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever.
>
> For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more implementations discriminated by its type.
>
> Hernán
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.
>
> This is not the intention of the workspace.
>
> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.
>
> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.
>
> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"

kilon.alios

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

My only objection was the documentation but since we cleared this up you have 100% my support , my faith and my trust.

Frankly I have voiced several concerns with GTPlayground because there was things I was missing from workspace and you were prompt to fix those issues and fast and efficiently , I see no reason to doubt that your work will have a massive impact on pharo and will drive Pharo forward.

Personally I love your style, because you are not just a coder its clear to me you have also an eye for good design. We may not agree at some decisions but still I cannot doubt that you take care of your design and understand the practical benefits of a good design.

Concerning the name itself you can change it, we cant have progress without change and if the name has to go, the name has to go. Even if you did want to change the name just to credit youself my point is that you well deserve it, you worked hard for this, its your baby why the hell you should not name it whatever you want. I dont care about names I care about features, documentation and good designs.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi everyone,

My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to disturb so many people with my infatuation.

At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many people look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment behind the effort.

I will stop responding to this thread now.

Thanks for the feedback.

Cheers,
Doru

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Hernán Morales Durand <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello Doru,

I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, for better or worst.

The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese Felis Catus which is a specific breed.

On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" discussions.

Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever.

For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more implementations discriminated by its type.

Hernán

2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <[hidden email]>:

Hi,

As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.

This is not the intention of the workspace.

Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.

Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.

It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Doru

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

abergel

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2

However, it is precisely those different opinions that are valuable even if it is uncomfortable for the one that proposes a new solution.

Yes, and this is how leaders are judged :-)

Alexandre

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Alexandre Bergel <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is amazing to see such many different opinions. For me, I would keep it innovative and breaking with its legacy. Playground for all! No more workspaces! And yeah, we will have to write new book about that. We are already working on this!

Cheers,
Alexandre

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code.
>
> This is not the intention of the workspace.
>
> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift.
>
> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness.
>
> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every thing has its own flow"

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

--
www.tudorgirba.com

"Every thing has its own flow"

abergel

Re: playground vs workspace

In reply to this post by Andreas Wacknitz

For me Playground is not even related to what is a Workspace. Therefore these two tools deserve different name in my opinion.

Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On Dec 8, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <[hidden email]> wrote:

For me what you call GTPlayground is a better workspace than the original one. It will replace the workspace (in Pharo) for me
but it is still a workspace.

123