[squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
Locked
123
123
[squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
 
|
Hi,
I'm responsible for generating each month the squeak-dev images. They currently exist in 4 versions which are all downloaded a lot: - based on 3.9 (174 downloads) - based on 3.9 with web stuffs (158 dl) - based on 3.10 with beta stuffs (129 dl) - based on 3.10 with beta and web stuffs (166 dl) Since 3.10 is not beta anymore, I would like to know what I have to do to suit your needs. It seems 3.9 based images are still used a lot. Is it because 3.10 based images contain beta stuffs or because people don't believe in 3.10 or something else? I have set-up this poll to know if I still need to base the dev-images on top of 3.9 and 3.10. Base squeak-dev images http://www.doodle.ch/5u67s53greapfdu6 Also, I would like to know if you consider some packages still beta or not. Please also answer the following poll: Squeak-dev beta packages: http://www.doodle.ch/9y9r6nr2imci8g38 And what about the web stuffs? Do I need to duplicate all images to have one version with and one without? This thread is also here to collect your remarks and comments. I would like to collect opinions so that future images fit most of your needs. -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
As for me (i'm a very newbee for squeak and st), 3.10 looks more heavy
and more slow. Visual decoration and theming is very nice but i don't know is it real cause of low performance. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 15:21, Damien Cassou <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm responsible for generating each month the squeak-dev images. They > currently exist in 4 versions which are all downloaded a lot: > > - based on 3.9 (174 downloads) > - based on 3.9 with web stuffs (158 dl) > - based on 3.10 with beta stuffs (129 dl) > - based on 3.10 with beta and web stuffs (166 dl) > > Since 3.10 is not beta anymore, I would like to know what I have to do > to suit your needs. It seems 3.9 based images are still used a lot. Is > it because 3.10 based images contain beta stuffs or because people > don't believe in 3.10 or something else? > > I have set-up this poll to know if I still need to base the dev-images > on top of 3.9 and 3.10. > Base squeak-dev images > http://www.doodle.ch/5u67s53greapfdu6 > > Also, I would like to know if you consider some packages still beta or > not. Please also answer the following poll: > Squeak-dev beta packages: > http://www.doodle.ch/9y9r6nr2imci8g38 > > And what about the web stuffs? Do I need to duplicate all images to > have one version with and one without? > > This thread is also here to collect your remarks and comments. I would > like to collect opinions so that future images fit most of your needs. > > -- > Damien Cassou > Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good > luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) > > |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Andrey Larionov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As for me (i'm a very newbee for squeak and st), 3.10 looks more heavy > and more slow. Visual decoration and theming is very nice but i don't > know is it real cause of low performance. The visual decorations are part of the beta package UI Enhancements. You can vote in the code poll and say that you do not consider this package as being cool enough for an installation everywhere. -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
It very cool, i like it and many more cool stuff in 3.10, but all my
browsers, eCompletion and other dev related features which lookups for classes and messages work a lil bit slower. I'm a newb and can compare only with Dolphin, which is platform optimized and has a considerably small basic image and functionality. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 15:51, Damien Cassou <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Andrey Larionov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> As for me (i'm a very newbee for squeak and st), 3.10 looks more heavy >> and more slow. Visual decoration and theming is very nice but i don't >> know is it real cause of low performance. > > The visual decorations are part of the beta package UI Enhancements. > You can vote in the code poll and say that you do not consider this > package as being cool enough for an installation everywhere. > > -- > Damien Cassou > Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good > luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) > > |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3
Damien Cassou a écrit :
> This thread is also here to collect your remarks and comments. I would > like to collect opinions so that future images fit most of your needs. > hello, let me submit some of my own packages for admission in your dev images: Colors, LambdaMessageSend, AMB and maybe LispKit since it is much more advanced than the Lisp interpreter you currently propose. all is there: http://map.squeak.org/accountbyid/5f9bef44-1fbb-4dd6-8f10-a69862ad5674 Stef |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
Hi Stéphane,
thank you for your answer. About your packages: Colors: I think it should be included in Squeak base images. It's a general enhancement. LambdaMessageSend and LispKit: they only target specific developers as with the web images. If you have a wide audience for these packages, I can help you generate your own distribution based on squeak-dev. AMB: for this one I have no idea if it could be helpful to most developers. What do others think? It seems to be small enough for an easy inclusion. I currently do not propose any Lisp interpreter in dev-images. What makes you think this? Bye On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]> wrote: > let me submit some of my own packages for admission in your dev images: > Colors, LambdaMessageSend, AMB and maybe LispKit since it is much more > advanced than the Lisp interpreter you currently propose. > > all is there: > http://map.squeak.org/accountbyid/5f9bef44-1fbb-4dd6-8f10-a69862ad5674 > > Stef > > > -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
Damien Cassou a écrit :
> Hi Stéphane, > > thank you for your answer. About your packages: > > Colors: I think it should be included in Squeak base images. It's a > general enhancement. ah, ok. but it has been there for years and was never included > LambdaMessageSend and LispKit: they only target specific developers as > with the web images. If you have a wide audience for these packages, I > can help you generate your own distribution based on squeak-dev. I proposed LispKit because I saw a reference to the old Lisp package. it is not included by default, it is present in the non-installed package list. never mind. LambdaMessageSend I find quite useful, and it's general purpose; I believe it could belong to the toolbox of any developer. the truth is that, while you rightly think about the usefulness of the packages you provide, I think about the visibility a package gets when included in your images. it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem: if nobody is aware of the existence of LambdaMessageSend or Colors, then nobody will use them and they will seem useless :) regards, Stef |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Stéphane Rollandin
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Damien Cassou a écrit : >> >> Hi Stéphane, >> >> thank you for your answer. About your packages: >> >> Colors: I think it should be included in Squeak base images. It's a >> general enhancement. > > ah, ok. but it has been there for years and was never included I was not aware of this package. You could for example add a bug report to mantis to ask for an inclusion. >> LambdaMessageSend and LispKit: they only target specific developers as >> with the web images. If you have a wide audience for these packages, I >> can help you generate your own distribution based on squeak-dev. > > I proposed LispKit because I saw a reference to the old Lisp package. it is > not included by default, it is present in the non-installed package list. > never mind. You may want to add your packages in the Universe. The how-to is at http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5899 > > LambdaMessageSend I find quite useful, and it's general purpose; I believe > it could belong to the toolbox of any developer. First add it to the universe. I'm creating a list of potential future included packages. As soon as I get answers from the question I ask in this thread, I will publish a new poll with a list of such packages to know which can be included in Squeak-dev. Is that ok? > the truth is that, while you rightly think about the usefulness of the > packages you provide, I think about the visibility a package gets when > included in your images. it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem: if nobody is > aware of the existence of LambdaMessageSend or Colors, then nobody will use > them and they will seem useless :) I'm aware of this problem and I already tried to push the Rio package this way. I think I failed because I don't see much activity around Rio. So maybe an inclusion in dev-images is not enough to advert a package. I don't know. -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
Damien Cassou a écrit :
> You may want to add your packages in the Universe. The how-to is at > http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5899 ... > First add it to the universe. I'm creating a list of potential future > included packages. As soon as I get answers from the question I ask in > this thread, I will publish a new poll with a list of such packages to > know which can be included in Squeak-dev. Is that ok? sure, thanks. Stef |
RE: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3
> I'm aware of this problem and I already tried to push the Rio package > this way. I think I failed because I don't see much activity around > Rio. So maybe an inclusion in dev-images is not enough to advert a > package. I don't know. > > -- > Damien Cassou I'd hate to see the dev image become a showroom for packages, I'd rather see it continue to be loaded with stuff most developers would load anyway. A package should probably be fairly popular and useful to even be considered for inclusion in the dev image because as soon as I have to start taking things out of it, I'll stop using it and go back to building my own. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> I'm aware of this problem and I already tried to push the Rio package >> this way. I think I failed because I don't see much activity around >> Rio. So maybe an inclusion in dev-images is not enough to advert a >> package. I don't know. >> >> -- >> Damien Cassou > > I'd hate to see the dev image become a showroom for packages, I'd rather see > it continue to be loaded with stuff most developers would load anyway. A > package should probably be fairly popular and useful to even be considered > for inclusion in the dev image because as soon as I have to start taking > things out of it, I'll stop using it and go back to building my own. This is the conclusion I also arrived at. However, things are not properly defined: how do you determine the popularity of a package? what is the threshold? -- Damien Cassou Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) |
RE: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
Or, perhaps more importantly, is it something that most developers would
want in their image. Tricky question, as always. Gary. > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of > Damien Cassou > Sent: 02 July 2008 4:36 PM > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different > flavors > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Ramon Leon > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> I'm aware of this problem and I already tried to push the Rio package > >> this way. I think I failed because I don't see much activity around > >> Rio. So maybe an inclusion in dev-images is not enough to advert a > >> package. I don't know. > >> > >> -- > >> Damien Cassou > > > > I'd hate to see the dev image become a showroom for packages, > I'd rather see > > it continue to be loaded with stuff most developers would load > anyway. A > > package should probably be fairly popular and useful to even be > considered > > for inclusion in the dev image because as soon as I have to start taking > > things out of it, I'll stop using it and go back to building my own. > > This is the conclusion I also arrived at. However, things are not > properly defined: how do you determine the popularity of a package? > what is the threshold? > > -- > Damien Cassou > Peter von der Ahé: «I'm beginning to see why Gilad wished us good > luck». (http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/entry/override_snafu) > |
Re: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
What about the times a package has been downloaded?
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Gary Chambers <[hidden email]> wrote: Or, perhaps more importantly, is it something that most developers would |
RE: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
Possibly, though not statistically valid, perhaps, in the wider sense
(extreme internal activity can skew).
Gary.
|
RE: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
In reply to this post by Gary Chambers-4
>
> Or, perhaps more importantly, is it something that most > developers would > want in their image. > Tricky question, as always. > > Gary. Certainly, and I think Damien has done a fine job to date on the dev image, it's a huge jumpstart on rebuilding my image. It is a fine line, but the squeak-web image for example, crosses it for me. I'd rather add Seaside to the dev image than strip out Aida and Pier from the web image because I don't use them. The dev image contains developer goodies, I like that; the web image starts pimping frameworks, no thanks, I'll choose what frameworks I load into my image. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com |
RE: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
Fair, of course. Hence the poll..
Gary. > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Ramon > Leon > Sent: 02 July 2008 6:13 PM > To: 'The general-purpose Squeak developers list' > Subject: RE: [squeak-dev] [Squeak-dev Images] About the different > flavors > > > > > > Or, perhaps more importantly, is it something that most > > developers would > > want in their image. > > Tricky question, as always. > > > > Gary. > > Certainly, and I think Damien has done a fine job to date on the > dev image, > it's a huge jumpstart on rebuilding my image. It is a fine line, but the > squeak-web image for example, crosses it for me. I'd rather add > Seaside to > the dev image than strip out Aida and Pier from the web image because I > don't use them. The dev image contains developer goodies, I like > that; the > web image starts pimping frameworks, no thanks, I'll choose what > frameworks > I load into my image. > > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:42:55 -0700, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]>
wrote: > I'd hate to see the dev image become a showroom for packages, I'd rather > see > it continue to be loaded with stuff most developers would load anyway. A > package should probably be fairly popular and useful to even be > considered > for inclusion in the dev image because as soon as I have to start taking > things out of it, I'll stop using it and go back to building my own. I agree with Ramon. I got confused with the 3.10 because of the "beta" designation. (I've been very lightly skimming for a few months due to other projects, and last I saw, vanilla 3.10 had been released and then recalled, and I wasn't sure if it had been re-released.) Basically, though, I like it because I know if I throw a switch to try something out, it will work and be relevant to development, versus wading through repositories and not knowing what's going to work, what version you need, etc. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Damien Cassou-3
Hi Damien,
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> I'm aware of this problem and I already tried to push the Rio >>> package this way. I think I failed because I don't see much activity >>> around Rio. So maybe an inclusion in dev-images is not enough to >>> advert a package. I don't know. >>> >>> -- >>> Damien Cassou >> I'd hate to see the dev image become a showroom for packages, I'd >> rather see it continue to be loaded with stuff most developers would >> load anyway. A package should probably be fairly popular and useful >> to even be considered for inclusion in the dev image because as soon >> as I have to start taking things out of it, I'll stop using it and go >> back to building my own. >> > This is the conclusion I also arrived at. However, things are not > properly defined: how do you determine the popularity of a package? > what is the threshold? >From a newcomers perspective - your images showcase whats possible from a developers point of view in Squeak. My early experiences of Squeak put me off for several years - it was an eyesore that only a mother could love (sorry to be brutal). As a professional programmer used to other tools like Eclipse, Visual Studio, Dolphin, Visual Age - the bar is quite high and Squeak struggles to attract new blood in its default incarnation. I have always tracked it and been curious but the bar seemed too high to get started - however having a nice looking default image with a good range of tools that compare nicely "with the competition" suddenly made it easier to get started and start using lots of the good stuff available. It seems like the squeak gurus would always start with a pure image and load up what they want becuase they know whats available and how to do that - I still struggle learning all the idioms and where to look so having a rich starting point is a great help. Tim |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
I agree with you
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Tim M <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi Damien, -- David Zmick /dz0004455\ http://dz0004455.googlepages.com http://dz0004455.blogspot.com |
[squeak-dev] Re: [Squeak-dev Images] About the different flavors
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Rollandin
Stéphane Rollandin a écrit :
> Damien Cassou a écrit : >> This thread is also here to collect your remarks and comments. I would >> like to collect opinions so that future images fit most of your needs. >> > > hello, > > let me submit some of my own packages for admission in your dev images: > Colors, LambdaMessageSend, AMB and maybe LispKit since it is much more > advanced than the Lisp interpreter you currently propose. > Stef, i load your Colors package in a 3.10 Squeak image. Color displayNamedColors does not work. -- Serge Stinckwich http://blog.doesnotunderstand.org/ |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |