Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Users

why Pillar

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

61 messages Options

1234

Offray

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Robert,

I'm a newbie myself on this community, with near to a year in it, but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve), so I don't know myself. I think that communities tend to be different on the way they behave according to on-topic or off-topic views. In the case of the Leo community, is not unusual some kind of public monologue about how to solve some issues, sharing "notes to myself" with all the list. In the case of Pharo/Moose the meta reflection seems better in places like blog post. I found this in my own case while asking questions in the Moose mailing list in long posts where I give a lot of background information and those did take a lot to be answered or where ignored at all. I remember that one meta-question I made to the list was "Am I asking wrong?" and after that I decided to test this combination of long background or panoramic/extra reflexions on blog post with more specific short questions in the respective mailing list or chat channel. I got better feedback in all channels (chat, mailing lists and blog comments) with this combination. See and example here:

http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscopio-idea-and-initial-progress.html

Hope this helps,

Offray

On 27/12/15 13:18, Robert Withers wrote:

Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no need to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second paragraph you censor me.

Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models.

Is the cellular meta-meme acceptable or is also the Mythic meta-meme? Or are both having no place here?

This is Smalltalk to me and my practical use of it. It is directly related to interactive fiction, which was just posted about. I am not trying to be belligerent, nay defend myself from hypocrisy and secure my rights, here.

So which is the acceptable meta-model?

Regards,
Robert

On 12/27/2015 12:49 PM, Johan Fabry wrote:
Robert, there is no need to feel that you are being censored for your spiritual and/or religious point of view and are being ostracized. 

This being said, this is a mailing list with a relatively high amount of traffic as well as many subscribers, and because of this nature the conversations here are supposed to be of a more directly practical nature and straightforwardly related to Pharo. So I agree with the main gist of Ben’s message (+ Marcus’ message of some time ago) and I am quite sure that many other subscribers to the list also do so.

So please keep your message on-topic, to assure a better mailing list experience for all.

Greetings,
On Dec 27, 2015, at 14:15, Robert Withers [hidden email] wrote:

I must say as well, I disagree strenuously to the community were attempts made to classify spiritual and religious scholarship and commentary, related as it demonstrably is to meta models in Smalltalk, to be placed on the censorship list.

I strenuously object to these objections to the sciences of consciousness.

respectfully,
robert
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry   -   http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs  -  Computer Science Department (DCC)  -  University of Chile

Offray

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On 27/12/15 13:54, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:

but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve),

Je je I meant "I regret not being able to answer back as quick as I get some feedback"

Cheers,

Offray

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Offray

Thank you Offray, for a way out of this dreadful conversation of opposition to free-thinking. Ahh, irony. You make an exceelent observation of some limitations you say you have also run into and your thoughtful solution to this.

best,

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

On 12/27/2015 01:54 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:

Robert,

I'm a newbie myself on this community, with near to a year in it, but not as active participation as I would like (I regret to answer back as quick as I get some feedback, but I'm trying to improve), so I don't know myself. I think that communities tend to be different on the way they behave according to on-topic or off-topic views. In the case of the Leo community, is not unusual some kind of public monologue about how to solve some issues, sharing "notes to myself" with all the list. In the case of Pharo/Moose the meta reflection seems better in places like blog post. I found this in my own case while asking questions in the Moose mailing list in long posts where I give a lot of background information and those did take a lot to be answered or where ignored at all. I remember that one meta-question I made to the list was "Am I asking wrong?" and after that I decided to test this combination of long background or panoramic/extra reflexions on blog post with more specific short questions in the respective mailing list or chat channel. I got better feedback in all channels (chat, mailing lists and blog comments) with this combination. See and example here:

http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscopio-idea-and-initial-progress.html

Hope this helps,

Offray

On 27/12/15 13:18, Robert Withers wrote:

Wait a second here. Let's be clear. In your first paragraph you say no need to feel that I am censored or ostracized, then the second paragraph you censor me.

Offray

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Gour

Hi Gour,

It seems that I have some similar quest to you, so I will try to answer
about my approximation to documentation in the Pharo worl, even with the
existance of Pillar (but being by no means any kind of expert on it, and
of course this is my own experience, your mileage may vary).

On 25/12/15 11:02, Saša Janiška wrote:

> Hiya,
>
> I see that Pharo project has embraced Pillar system for documentation
> purposes and my first question was "Why Pillar?" since, iirc, comparison
> was made with e.g Markdown which is, obviously, not sufficient for eg.
> authoring books, but there are more capable markups with 'standard'
> implementations like rst/Sphinx and Asciidoc(tor).
>
> Then I thought it must be some deeper reason, iow. something suitable to
> work more closely with Pharo itself.
>
> Now I have two questions:
>
> 1) Can someone answer in more detail "Why Pillar?" and

Seems that the reasons exposed in this tread are: It predated markdown,
so was already used inside the community, and gives us finer control on
the overall markup language, including exporting formats. I have tested
several light markup languages for documentation including markdown,
reST, AsciiDoc, dokuwiki, wikimedia, tiddly wiki, text2tags (t2), among
others. There are several features that are desirable in many of them,
like nice evoking notations of t2t and dokuwiki, wide support for
exporting formats of reST, readability of AsciiDoc regarding extending
features, the spread of Media wiki or nice modular approach to
documentation of tiddly wiki. Surely the two reasons for pillar are also
good ones. How do you balance this options?

Before reentering Pharo I was thinking in something like an extensible
light markup language, like t2t, but instead of using regular expression
(t2t uses them), it would use something like yaml[1] and a processor of
these serialized data for different exporters. The idea of combining
light markup languages for documentation and data serialization seems to
become more popular these days. Two projects implement this idea
Pandoc[2] and Grav[3] and both use a combination of markdown and yaml.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAML
[2] http://pandoc.org/
[3] http://getgrav.org/

So, how this could be combined with the offerings of Pharo? My bet is on
pandoc (markdown+yaml) for writing almost anything, with some advantages
over pillar:

a. It has a bigger momentum with projects like scholarly markdown ([4]
http://scholmd.org/)
b. It has support for bibliographic references, footnotes a a more
complete feature set.

The finer control would be offered by using abstract syntax trees (AST)
for more detailed manipulation, which is already used to extend pandoc
with languages like ruby, lua, perl (see examples in [5]
http://pandoc.org/scripting.html) and could be used, theoretically with
Pharo. That's where metamodels used by Pillar could be used, so we could
extend pandoc inside Pharo, while using markdown + yaml as a common
language to write prose with other authors beyond this community,
because Pillar is used only here, while markdown is becoming more used
as a cross-community language for documentation, including Jupyter
notebooks that combine documentation with languages like R, Julia,
Haskell or Python.

This lead me to your next point:

>
> 2) For some time I was considering whether to settle on using rst or
> AsciiDoc for *all* my writings, which means blog posts, my study notes,
> preparing books, writing articles etc.
>
> Since I've settled to use Python-powered static-site-generator (Nikola)
> along with reStructuredText markup which can call external 'compilers'
> to process blog posts written in specific markup, I wonder if it would
> be possible to use Pillar markup with it since it seems there is cli for
> it?

I have been using Nikola myself and keeping myself under a more cohesive
python environment for making my publishing and scripting/programming
exploration. That changed after knowing Pharo/Roassal/Moose and now I
try to "live inside" these technologies most of the time for my own
interactive documentation and visualization project[6] and connect with
the external world via standards & formats like Json, cvs, yaml and
markdown. That's why now I'm using grav instead of Nikola for my web
publishing. Ecstatic have more powerful things like a logic-less
approach to templating via mustache, that is neutral to the underlaying
language, while grav templating is tied to php, but grav seems more
developed and with more ready to use templates or skeletons for web
publishing, so, once installed, you barely touch any underlaying
technology beyond markup languages. More details on the
transition/combination of grav/nikola can be found on [7].

[6] http://mutabit.com/grafoscopio/index.en.html
[7] http://mutabit.com/offray/blog/es/entry/2015-10-06-grav-nikola-both

So, while I think that choosing Pharo technologies is better for making
them more mature, tested and used, I also think that is important to
choose proper balance to know which combination of Pharo technologies
and external ones is adequate. That depends on each user. In my case,
living inside Pharo for almost anything and choosing markdown + yaml for
writing and publishing (via pandoc and grav) have worked very well and
could be a working combination for you also. That doesn't preclude
further exploration and use of other related Pharo technologies like
Pillar and Ecstatic, but this could be made in the future via
metamodels/ASTs or as a way to extend/modify the way Pharo interacts or
integrates with the external world... well I'm getting kind of
philosophical here, but that would be my middle term approach on
publishing and markup languages.

Cheers,

Offray

Ps: Would you mind to share more details about your project. The
questions you're asking for it are pretty interesting.

Robert Withers

Meta-models (Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar))

In reply to this post by jfabry

On 12/27/2015 01:50 PM, Johan Fabry wrote:

On Dec 27, 2015, at 15:18, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:

Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models.

I have no opinion on this, this is a design question for your work, and not straightforwardly related to Pharo itself. In my opinion and apparently in the opinion of others as well, this is not a topic for this mailing list. Sending multiple mails to the list about it can be considered bad netiquette.

I find it very unfortunate you sidestepped my question with a claim of not only no opinion, but that it has no place on this list. Intellectual dishonesty is a rather poor maneuver for one who claims to be of an enlightened tribe. I object on the basis of principle.

So, I would extend you another opportunity, which are valid meta-models? Let's talk about meta-memes and meta-models within Pharo's creative space. Shall it be the military analogy, then? How unfortunate, I'd wish an alternative.

Regards,

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Robert Withers

Re: Meta-models (Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar))

Yes, here we are, all three models. Just like we have a bunch of languages from around the world, my wish is to see many meta-models for my higher stack layers, as many would not understand one or the other and can, in fact, create their own model through which they control their interactions with the One distriubuted cloud image-based Metaverse. Let us aim high.

So to Pharo: How can I do this multi-model interactions on a real system, through multi-meme interactive fiction?

Do you know what I mean, then?

robert

Military lens

On 12/27/2015 08:55 PM, Robert Withers wrote:

On 12/27/2015 01:50 PM, Johan Fabry wrote:

On Dec 27, 2015, at 15:18, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:

Alright, I ask you all. Which meta-model is acceptable for practical work in my stack? I need a meta-model to describe it, or rahter anyone should be able to skin the meta-model they want and that makes most sense. These consciousness meta-models, or meta-memes, from religious tradition are well-defined models.

I have no opinion on this, this is a design question for your work, and not straightforwardly related to Pharo itself. In my opinion and apparently in the opinion of others as well, this is not a topic for this mailing list. Sending multiple mails to the list about it can be considered bad netiquette.

I find it very unfortunate you sidestepped my question with a claim of not only no opinion, but that it has no place on this list. Intellectual dishonesty is a rather poor maneuver for one who claims to be of an enlightened tribe. I object on the basis of principle.

So, I would extend you another opportunity, which are valid meta-models? Let's talk about meta-memes and meta-models within Pharo's creative space. Shall it be the military analogy, then? How unfortunate, I'd wish an alternative.

Regards,
-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Ben Coman

Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical.

I was unwilling to let that go by as an implicit restriction on the substance of my posting, into the future. ...and the thread is twice as long. Not my doing. Some things must be challenged.

Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.

robert

On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

Hi Robert,

I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level,
but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters,
(plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted
responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail
often hide)

cheers -ben

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
[hidden email] wrote:

My apologies...I'll try for
#random. :)

nameste,
robert


--
There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
being death.
(avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)


On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:

I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was
jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy
of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is
there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that have
no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).

cheers,
robert

---

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
very source of creation.




On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:

On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška [hidden email] wrote:

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote:

Hello Robert,

Good day Saša,

Welcome to Pharo!  I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge
sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and
a good thing too.

Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.

I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and
effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
supplants older limited knowledge.


As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

:-)

Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
speculation when you find #new! :-)


Hare hare and Merry Christmas,

Haribol and Happy New Year!

Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!

---
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they
have.


--
As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
transcendent self.

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Nicolai Hess-3-2

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

2015-12-28 3:15 GMT+01:00 Robert Withers <[hidden email]>:

Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical.

Hi Robert,

usually, I don't comment on this kind of discussion. It wastes resources we don't have.

I just want to let other peoples (like ben, phil, johan,...) know, that I share their opinion.

I don't like if people argue with "I am censored", because someone critisized you.

I don't like if people see every critic as a negative personel attack.

you post on this list, and people suggest to stay ontopic resp. explain how this things are related

to pharo. That's all.

nicolai

I was unwilling to let that go by as an implicit restriction on the substance of my posting, into the future. ...and the thread is twice as long. Not my doing. Some things must be challenged.

Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.

robert

On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

Hi Robert,

I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level,
but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters,
(plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted
responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail
often hide)

cheers -ben

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
[hidden email] wrote:

My apologies...I'll try for
#random. :)

nameste,
robert


--
There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
being death.
(avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)


On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:

I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was
jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy
of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is
there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that have
no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).

cheers,
robert

---

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
very source of creation.




On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:

On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška [hidden email] wrote:

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote:

Hello Robert,

Good day Saša,

Welcome to Pharo!  I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge
sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and
a good thing too.

Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.

I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and
effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
supplants older limited knowledge.


As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

:-)

Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
speculation when you find #new! :-)

Hare hare and Merry Christmas,

Haribol and Happy New Year!

Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!

---
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they
have.


--
As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
transcendent self.

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Gour

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Offray

On Ned, 2015-12-27 at 18:50 -0500, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:

Hiya,

> Seems that the reasons exposed in this tread are: It predated
> markdown, so was already used inside the community, and gives us
> finer control on the overall markup language, including exporting
> formats.

Nothing against it, but some features like footnotes are simply 'must'
for serious writing, at least in my domain.

> Two projects implement this idea Pandoc[2]

Yeah, Pandoc is great and it would be cool to have Pillar support for
it.

> and Grav[3] and both use a combination of markdown and yaml.

Grav looks interesting, but I believe I simply want to leave PHP world.
:-)

> My bet is on pandoc (markdown+yaml) for writing almost anything, with
> some advantages over pillar:

My main complaint to markdown is that it is not standard, despite many
attempts (or extensions).

> b. It has support for bibliographic references, footnotes a a more
> complete feature set.

I wonder how is it that despite being present for so long, it does miss
such features...

> I have been using Nikola myself and keeping myself under a more
> cohesive python environment for making my publishing and
> scripting/programming exploration. That changed after knowing
> Pharo/Roassal/Moose and now I try to "live inside" these technologies
> most of the time for my own interactive documentation and
> visualization project[6] and connect with the external world via
> standards & formats like Json, cvs, yaml and markdown. That's why now
> I'm using grav instead of Nikola for my web publishing.

Have you considered to use Pillar markup with Nikola?

That's one option I'm considering if Pillar is going to get things liek
footnotes etc.

> Ecstatic have more powerful things like a logic-less
> approach to templating via mustache, that is neutral to the
> underlaying language

That would be another 'pro' for Pillar markup+Nikola, although I belive
Jinja is sufficient for my web needs.

Btw, let me say that I'm also inspired with Butterick and was
considering to use Racket for my project, but ended up here. :-)

> So, while I think that choosing Pharo technologies is better for
> making them more mature, tested and used, I also think that is
> important to choose proper balance to know which combination of Pharo
> technologies and external ones is adequate.

I didn't mention, but I was playing with Golang's Hugo for some time
which is also nice and, to me, preferrable over PHP.

> Ps: Would you mind to share more details about your project. The
> questions you're asking for it are pretty interesting.

Well, I' considering to write extensive application for Vedic astrology
(including calendaring app) which could be used for research purposes,
e.g. having ability to seatch for different patterns present in charts
stored in local (Sqlite3) databases. There is something similar here:

http://saravali.de/maitreya.html

but it's written in C++/wx, while I hope to make it with Pharo.

Sincerely,
Gour

--
Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And
whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.
--
As a strong wind sweeps away a boat on the water,
even one of the roaming senses on which the mind
focuses can carry away a man's intelligence.

http://www.atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Nicolai Hess-3-2

On 12/28/2015 04:58 AM, Nicolai Hess wrote:

2015-12-28 3:15 GMT+01:00 Robert Withers <[hidden email]>:

Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical.

Hi Robert,

usually, I don't comment on this kind of discussion. It wastes resources we don't have.

I just want to let other peoples (like ben, phil, johan,...) know, that I share their opinion.

I don't like if people argue with "I am censored", because someone critisized you.

I don't like if people see every critic as a negative personel attack.

you post on this list, and people suggest to stay ontopic resp. explain how this things are related

to pharo. That's all.

Which is exactly what I did, I posted how it is related and still caught a knee-jerk reaction. I am drawing a line. I will continue to reference religious and scriptural meta-models. There is coherent thought in these models and they are familiar to the majority of the people on the planet, the average person, even if the intellectuals fail to resonate with it. This familiarity makes it a good model for the average person to interact. Seems to be a lack of knowledge on the side of the intellectuals.

Robert

nicolai

On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

Hi Robert,

I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual level,
but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters,
(plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted
responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail
often hide)

cheers -ben

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
[hidden email] wrote:

My apologies...I'll try for
#random. :)

nameste,
robert


--
There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
being death.
(avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)


On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:

I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was
jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the analogy
of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is
there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that have
no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).

cheers,
robert

---

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
very source of creation.




On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:

On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška [hidden email] wrote:

On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote:

Hello Robert,

Good day Saša,

Welcome to Pharo!  I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge
sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and
a good thing too.

Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.

I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration and
effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
supplants older limited knowledge.


As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)

:-)

Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
speculation when you find #new! :-)

Hare hare and Merry Christmas,

Haribol and Happy New Year!

Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!

---
But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they
have.


--
As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
transcendent self.

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Ben Coman

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Robert Withers

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Robert Withers
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you
> but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction,
> having just been exposed to what that is.

I'm quite comfortable with spirituality in the right context. Its
just a *distraction* from the technical content. Your posts have
interesting technical questions but the spiritual padding obfuscates
them such that I can't understand what you are asking and makes me
feel unqualified to any answer - so can only ignore such posts. But
actually I don't like doing so, thus I sought to advise you in a
concise way that did not pollute the mail list too much. I'm sure
others in the community are in the same boat, so really you are
narrowing your opportunity for useful responses from the community.

> In addition I am connecting this to an educational process
> and picture of some unique areas of Pharo.

> I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any "rules" I am aware of
> unless you have dominion, agency and possession to be establishing such a rule at
> this time.

Interesting that you take such an adversarial position to a polite
request. Religion is divisive and any particular doctrine can
alienate community members of some other doctrine, similar maybe to
how you feel about my request. This divisiveness is best left to
other forums.

There are no written rules and I'm not establishing a new one. But
any community has an established culture and expectations of content,
which anyone should be able discern from observation of the majority
posts. It behoves you to pay attention to this of your own accord.
Indeed my comment should not have been necessary - but entropy dilutes
community standards unless they are actively maintained.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Robert Withers
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough
> for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really
> needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change
> in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical.

It was a hard decision for me to speak out. Its a fine line balancing
community norms against open discussion and I don't want to be the
arbitrator. But again community standards don't maintain themselves.
Now it is was not that particular thread but rather the spiritual
padding pervading many of your posts.

> I was unwilling to let that go by as an implicit restriction on the
> substance of my posting, into the future. ...and the thread is twice as
> long. Not my doing. Some things must be challenged.

Online communities cooperate together under many implicit rules, so
they sometimes can be missed. Rather I was explicitly bringing this
rule to your attention. I do this publicly to provide the opportunity
for other community members to correct me if I'm wrong.

> Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.

Or say yes to playing well with others.

> If so, I will desist; otherwise I will continue to mine the
> ancient sources of psychology and sociology for application to the best damn
> little programming environment every other language fails to emulate.
>
> Once again, my apologies this upsets you.

Its not upsetting, just tedious to have to twice take my time to
advise to you of community expectations.
But this is only a request, and its not a productive discussion so
will be my last post on the topic. Take a free right of reply and
I'll follow up in private.

cheers -ben

> Sincerely,
> Robert
>
>
> On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual
>> level,
>> but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters,
>> (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted
>> responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail
>> often hide)
>>
>> cheers -ben
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have
>>> always
>>> thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The
>>> VM
>>> is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image
>>> together,
>>> through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead.
>>>
>>> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was
>>> the
>>> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for
>>> #random. :)
>>>
>>> nameste,
>>> robert
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
>>> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
>>> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
>>> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
>>> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
>>> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
>>> being death.
>>> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>
>>> I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was
>>> jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the
>>> analogy
>>> of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is
>>> there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that
>>> have
>>> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> robert
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
>>> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
>>> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
>>> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
>>> very source of creation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Robert,
>>>
>>> Good day Saša,
>>>
>>> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge
>>> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and
>>> a good thing too.
>>>
>>> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
>>> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.
>>>
>>> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration
>>> and
>>> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
>>> supplants older limited knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
>>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
>>> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
>>> speculation when you find #new! :-)
>>>
>>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
>>>
>>> Haribol and Happy New Year!
>>>
>>> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!
>>>
>>> ---
>>> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
>>> transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what
>>> they
>>> have.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
>>> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
>>> transcendent self.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

Ben, I appreciate your reply. We were both involved in establishing
boundaries: yours in the negative (don't post such here) and mine in the
positive (I'll feel free to post on such matters).

I'll follow your lead and not respond anymore to this thread.

Best,
Robert

On 12/28/2015 06:52 AM, Ben Coman wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Robert Withers
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Sure Ben, I could. My apologies if the paradigm of spirituality bothers you
>> but it is a perfectly legitimate source of analogy AND interactive fiction,
>> having just been exposed to what that is.
> I'm quite comfortable with spirituality in the right context. Its
> just a *distraction* from the technical content. Your posts have
> interesting technical questions but the spiritual padding obfuscates
> them such that I can't understand what you are asking and makes me
> feel unqualified to any answer - so can only ignore such posts. But
> actually I don't like doing so, thus I sought to advise you in a
> concise way that did not pollute the mail list too much. I'm sure
> others in the community are in the same boat, so really you are
> narrowing your opportunity for useful responses from the community.
>
>> In addition I am connecting this to an educational process
>> and picture of some unique areas of Pharo.
>> I don't seem to have a problem nor am I breaking any "rules" I am aware of
>> unless you have dominion, agency and possession to be establishing such a rule at
>> this time.
> Interesting that you take such an adversarial position to a polite
> request. Religion is divisive and any particular doctrine can
> alienate community members of some other doctrine, similar maybe to
> how you feel about my request. This divisiveness is best left to
> other forums.
>
> There are no written rules and I'm not establishing a new one. But
> any community has an established culture and expectations of content,
> which anyone should be able discern from observation of the majority
> posts. It behoves you to pay attention to this of your own accord.
> Indeed my comment should not have been necessary - but entropy dilutes
> community standards unless they are actively maintained.
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Robert Withers
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Here's the thing that gets my goat: I had already acknowledged it was enough
>> for the list and was signing off further comment when Ben decided he really
>> needed to add his two cents. It is unfortunate he did not spend his change
>> in a positive manner but wished to be negative and critical.
> It was a hard decision for me to speak out. Its a fine line balancing
> community norms against open discussion and I don't want to be the
> arbitrator. But again community standards don't maintain themselves.
> Now it is was not that particular thread but rather the spiritual
> padding pervading many of your posts.
>
>> I was unwilling to let that go by as an implicit restriction on the
>> substance of my posting, into the future. ...and the thread is twice as
>> long. Not my doing. Some things must be challenged.
> Online communities cooperate together under many implicit rules, so
> they sometimes can be missed. Rather I was explicitly bringing this
> rule to your attention. I do this publicly to provide the opportunity
> for other community members to correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>> Do you know what I mean, then? Just say no to intellectual coercion.
> Or say yes to playing well with others.
>
>> If so, I will desist; otherwise I will continue to mine the
>> ancient sources of psychology and sociology for application to the best damn
>> little programming environment every other language fails to emulate.
>>
>> Once again, my apologies this upsets you.
> Its not upsetting, just tedious to have to twice take my time to
> advise to you of community expectations.
> But this is only a request, and its not a productive discussion so
> will be my last post on the topic. Take a free right of reply and
> I'll follow up in private.
>
> cheers -ben
>
>
>> Sincerely,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> On 12/27/2015 11:33 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> I'm glad your found someone on the list to connect to on a spiritual
>>> level,
>>> but could you please keep your public posts to technical matters,
>>> (plus keep signatures short and trim old signatures from quoted
>>> responses - which unfortunately threaded email clients like gmail
>>> often hide)
>>>
>>> cheers -ben
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Robert Withers
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am not quite sure where arupa is (without form), actually. I have
>>>> always
>>>> thought of it as namarupa (name and form) and never before as arupa. The
>>>> VM
>>>> is what deals with form/rupa and binds the names/nama of the image
>>>> together,
>>>> through dynamic lookup, versus static lookup. Alive & dead.
>>>>
>>>> I've never thought about the arupa of Pharo, yet I was thinking it was
>>>> the
>>>> meta layers, where everything has the same amorphic form.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the analogy starts to fall apart. My apologies...I'll try for
>>>> #random. :)
>>>>
>>>> nameste,
>>>> robert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> There are five kinds of coloring (kleshas):
>>>> 1) forgetting, or ignorance about the true nature of things (avidya),
>>>> 2) I-ness, individuality, or egoism (asmita),
>>>> 3) attachment or addiction to mental impressions or objects (raga),
>>>> 4) aversion to thought patterns or objects (dvesha), and
>>>> 5) love of these as being life itself, as well as fear of their loss as
>>>> being death.
>>>> (avidya asmita raga dvesha abhinivesha pancha klesha)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/27/2015 09:44 AM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking about this on my drive home, more, and I think that I was
>>>> jumping the duck. #new is related to named classes, therefore in the
>>>> analogy
>>>> of brahma-loka, this is more of a rupa level behavior. The arupa level is
>>>> there (and there is a #new at that level) but it deals with things that
>>>> have
>>>> no form, but by name only (#allInstancesDo:).
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> robert
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me.
>>>> Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer
>>>> of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am
>>>> not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the
>>>> very source of creation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/26/2015 08:50 PM, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 26, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Pet, 2015-12-25 at 15:59 -0500, Robert Withers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Robert,
>>>>
>>>> Good day Saša,
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to Pharo! I view use of Pharo (squeak) as a knowledge
>>>> sacrifice eliminating bondage to Karma. This is not the mainstream and
>>>> a good thing too.
>>>>
>>>> Nice comparison...although, being at the beginning I still do not
>>>> understand/see it as a sacrifice, but can feel it is liberating.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose I think that the expenditure of time, resources, concentration
>>>> and
>>>> effort constitute said sacrifice of knowledge as new broader knowledge
>>>> supplants older limited knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an example, where is the root implementation of #new defined? Hint:
>>>> it is close to Pharo's arupa-brahma-loka, the highest planes. ;)
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Well I do think the meta system is the realms of brahma-loka, and that is
>>>> split into rupa and arupa. Please let us know your thoughts on this
>>>> speculation when you find #new! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Hare hare and Merry Christmas,
>>>>
>>>> Haribol and Happy New Year!
>>>>
>>>> Dhiyo yo nah prachodayat!
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My
>>>> transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what
>>>> they
>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> As a lamp in a windless place does not waver, so the transcendentalist,
>>>> whose mind is controlled, remains always steady in his meditation on the
>>>> transcendent self.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

--
Robert
. .. ... ^,^

jfabry

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Robert Withers

Robert,

by talking about ‘a knee-jerk reaction’ and ‘a lack of knowledge’ you are being rude to us. Please don’t do that. In our mails we have been courteous and avoided using such hurtful expressions.

Also, there is a difference between lack of knowledge and lack of time. I am only human with limited time and matters which are more pressing than the discussion you insist on holding. Consider it from my point of view: I am not forcing you to think about design decisions of the JIT of the domain-specific language for robotics that am I building.

Greetings,

On Dec 28, 2015, at 08:29, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:

Which is exactly what I did, I posted how it is related and still caught a knee-jerk reaction. I am drawing a line. I will continue to reference religious and scriptural meta-models. There is coherent thought in these models and they are familiar to the majority of the people on the planet, the average person, even if the intellectuals fail to resonate with it. This familiarity makes it a good model for the average person to interact. Seems to be a lack of knowledge on the side of the intellectuals.

---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

Robert Withers

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

On 12/28/2015 08:01 AM, Johan Fabry wrote:

Robert,

Consider it from my point of view: I am not forcing you to think about design decisions of the JIT of the domain-specific language for robotics that am I building.

Good Lord in Heaven, please tell me more! I always love to learn more and I am right at home living inside a joint space perspective. I am highly interested in the JIT and robotics.

Best regards,
Robert

Greetings,

On Dec 28, 2015, at 08:29, Robert Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:

Which is exactly what I did, I posted how it is related and still caught a knee-jerk reaction. I am drawing a line. I will continue to reference religious and scriptural meta-models. There is coherent thought in these models and they are familiar to the majority of the people on the planet, the average person, even if the intellectuals fail to resonate with it. This familiarity makes it a good model for the average person to interact. Seems to be a lack of knowledge on the side of the intellectuals.

---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---

Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD and RyCh labs - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Robert Withers

Robotic Avatars

On 12/28/2015 08:11 AM, Robert Withers wrote:

On 12/28/2015 08:01 AM, Johan Fabry wrote:

Robert,

Consider it from my point of view: I am not forcing you to think about design decisions of the JIT of the domain-specific language for robotics that am I building.

Good Lord in Heaven, please tell me more! I always love to learn more and I am right at home living inside a joint space perspective. I am highly interested in the JIT and robotics.

Best regards,
Robert

I plan to define a logical avatar, with various characteristics and attached attributes. This will be viewable through a chosen perspective and there may be more than one tech level perspective. A strong perspective of avatars in 2D or 3D graphics and using robotics to control avatars and NPCs in this space seems important to my vision of this. Think of the Metaverse and the underground passages in the black hacker building (Snow Crash).

-- 
Robert
.  ..   ...    ^,^

Offray

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Gour

Hi,

On 28/12/15 06:16, Saša Janiška wrote:

> On Ned, 2015-12-27 at 18:50 -0500, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
>> Seems that the reasons exposed in this tread are: It predated
>> markdown, so was already used inside the community, and gives us
>> finer control on the overall markup language, including exporting
>> formats.
> Nothing against it, but some features like footnotes are simply 'must'
> for serious writing, at least in my domain.

Yes, that's why I use pandoc's markdown.

>> Two projects implement this idea Pandoc[2]
> Yeah, Pandoc is great and it would be cool to have Pillar support for
> it.

You could extend it via Abstract Syntax Trees with Pharo.

>> and Grav[3] and both use a combination of markdown and yaml.
> Grav looks interesting, but I believe I simply want to leave PHP world.
> :-)

I did for a lot of time, barely touching anything php related and, as I
said in the blog post about Nikola and Grav[1], I dislike the php syntax
and pragmatics. But this doesn't prevent the acknowledge and eventual
use of really good solutions made on php like dokuwiki, Question2Answer
and Grav. What I'm trying to do is to communicate with this solutions
without touching too much the php part, just using more standard formats
like Json, cvs, markdown and yaml.

[1] http://mutabit.com/offray/blog/es/entry/2015-10-06-grav-nikola-both

>> My bet is on pandoc (markdown+yaml) for writing almost anything, with
>> some advantages over pillar:
> My main complaint to markdown is that it is not standard, despite many
> attempts (or extensions).

That's why I recommending you pandoc's markdown variant. It has
extensive support for footnotes, bibliographic references, tables,
latex, a lot of exporting formats and extensibility via exporting and
manipulating the Abstract Syntax Tree. Pandoc is also used in Scholarly
markdown and Jupyter projects so you could use the markup language
variant with more people beyond this community.

>> b. It has support for bibliographic references, footnotes a a more
>> complete feature set.
> I wonder how is it that despite being present for so long, it does miss
> such features...

Well that's the cost of being part of a small community where not all
the projects can be developed beyond the interest and limitations of few
members. And that's why interaction with broader communities (for
example pandoc's one could be wise).

> Have you considered to use Pillar markup with Nikola? That's one
> option I'm considering if Pillar is going to get things liek footnotes
> etc.

No. As I said in the previous referred blog post I will use Nikola for
self hosted IPython/Jupyter notebooks and Grav mostly everywhere in web
publishing. Using padoc's markdown as the default format gives me a lot
of interoperability between documentation systems. My bet for mixing
pharo related developments and pandoc is via the Abstract Syntax Tree
manipulations... at some point.

>> Ecstatic have more powerful things like a logic-less
>> approach to templating via mustache, that is neutral to the
>> underlaying language
> That would be another 'pro' for Pillar markup+Nikola, although I belive
> Jinja is sufficient for my web needs.

What I would like is to integrate Mustache in future web developments
using Teapot, and Pharo, but my documentation language in the back end
would be the same and more cross-community: markdown + yaml. So mustache
and abstract syntax trees is an argument for not caring too much about a
tightly integrated and Pharo only markup language.

> Btw, let me say that I'm also inspired with Butterick and was
> considering to use Racket for my project, but ended up here. :-)

Did you mean this:

http://practicaltypography.com/why-racket-why-lisp.html

I think that racket is a pretty interesting system and Pollen[2] is also
interesting for documentation. The idea of document as a program was
presented to me in the times when I used TeXmacs[3] and then Leo
Editor[4]. Now I'm trying to bridge several ideas of these technologies
with the Interactivity of IPython but using the flexibility and
understandability of Pharo/Moose/Roassal for my own interactive
documentation (alpha state) project[5][6]

[2] http://pollenpub.com/
[3] http://texmacs.org/
[4] http://leoeditor.com/
[5] http://mutabit.com/grafoscopio/index.en.html
[6]
http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscopio-idea-and-initial-progress.html

>> So, while I think that choosing Pharo technologies is better for
>> making them more mature, tested and used, I also think that is
>> important to choose proper balance to know which combination of Pharo
>> technologies and external ones is adequate.
> I didn't mention, but I was playing with Golang's Hugo for some time
> which is also nice and, to me, preferrable over PHP.

Didn't know about that or TOML. As I said, your barely touch php with
grav, but the self-containment of Hugo and the easy syntax of TOML seem
like good arguments in favor of them for web publishing. The main
message here is that you can combine Pharo technologies with non Pharo
ones via standard markup languages like markdown or yaml (or toml) and
yet get extensibility in Pharo.

Cheers,

Offray

Gour

Re: why Pillar

On Pon, 2015-12-28 at 10:21 -0500, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:

> That's why I recommending you pandoc's markdown variant. It has
> extensive support for footnotes, bibliographic references, tables,
> latex, a lot of exporting formats and extensibility via exporting and
> manipulating the Abstract Syntax Tree. Pandoc is also used in
> Scholarly markdown and Jupyter projects so you could use the markup
> language variant with more people beyond this community.

But you're aware that you can also use Pandoc's markdown with Nikola?

> Did you mean this:
>
> http://practicaltypography.com/why-racket-why-lisp.html

Yes.

>and then Leo Editor[4].

I tried that, but, for some reason, it was not compelling-enough to
switch...

Sincerely,
Gour

--
What is night for all beings is the time of awakening
for the self-controlled; and the time of awakening for
all beings is night for the introspective sage.

Offray

Re: why Pillar

Hi,

On 28/12/15 10:43, Saša Janiška wrote:
> On Pon, 2015-12-28 at 10:21 -0500, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas wrote:
>
>> That's why I recommending you pandoc's markdown variant. It has
>> extensive support for footnotes, bibliographic references, tables,
>> latex, a lot of exporting formats and extensibility via exporting and
>> manipulating the Abstract Syntax Tree. Pandoc is also used in
>> Scholarly markdown and Jupyter projects so you could use the markup
>> language variant with more people beyond this community.
> But you're aware that you can also use Pandoc's markdown with Nikola?

Yes. I'm but if you read the blog post, you'll see that the main reason
for choosing grav for almost everything else and Nikola for self hosted
Jupyter/IPython noteboks is not the lack of support for pandoc, but
themes, skeletons and interactivity. (Details in the referred blog post).

> .
>> and then Leo Editor[4].
>
> I tried that, but, for some reason, it was not compelling-enough to
> switch...

I used Leo for several years, but nothing beats for me the interactivity
and modifiability of a live coding environment like Pharo/Rossal.

Cheers,

Offray

stepharo

Re: Transcendental #new (was Re: why Pillar)

In reply to this post by Robert Withers

To conclude this thread, Robert I suggest that you stay on a technical
discussion.
Do not force us to ban you (we will do it if you continue) because people
are distracted.
Most of us do not understand all these spiritual points and do not want to
read about them in such mailing-lists.

Stef

stepharo

Re: why Pillar

In reply to this post by Gour

Saša

have a look at Pillar and you can add footnotes and we will review your
code and integrate it.
We are just really busy right now.

Stef

1234