Squeak-dev June 2011

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

77 participants
236 discussions

Re: [Pharo-project] usability of Pharo and Squeak
by Andreas Wacknitz 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

After following the discussion for some time, I have the impression that there are some smalltalkers suffering similar usability problems like my friend and me and some more or less enjoy the actual state. Dolphin 6 Professional introduced IdeaSpace. With that you can have both - single windows and tabbed windows. It's up to the user to either open windows outside IdeaSpace as independent windows or inside IdeaSpace as tabbed windows. Having the free choice is a good thing. Especially if you don't want to alienate newcomers that are used to use tabbed windows. I like this approach. I haven't looked at TWM yet due to lack of time. I am hardly able to read the mail traffic in the evenings. But I asked my friend to have a look at it. He promised to do so although it's not suited to Pharo 1.2.1. As Pharo 1.3 is not yet stable I fear that he might have new problems in other areas. What strikes me during this discussion is that nobody seem to have the same problem with window sizes and positions. I don't like RealEstateAgent and I don't think that a revamped one will solve the problems. At least as long it doesn't provide the possibility to set sizes on the fly. No algorithm can guess the requirements of all users. I also haven't heard about applications written in Squeak or Pharo and what about user thereof think about the usability. IMO there is a lack of an appropriate framework for dealing with such things. Or is everybody developing web applications nowadays? I have a hard time to promote Smalltalk because of its actual state. I always tell people about my favorite programming language, but I also tell them that alas there is no good implementation of it available. This is sad but true, even if Pharo and Squeak made big progress during the last months. Both, Squeak and Pharo, aren't products but just tools. And that makes a big difference. The commercial products have characteristics that make them not very attractive to people not yet involved. Despite Dolphin they all have dated user interfaces, too. When I try to convince people to have a look at Dolphin they typically tell me: very nice but it seems to be dead already. Regards, Andreas

2 1

Modular syntax, and the Refactoring Browser (was Re: [squeak-dev] smalltalk evolution)
by Frank Shearar 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

On 2 June 2011 01:46, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So the #(static array literals) have been very useful to me due mostly to > their compactness. > I recently had a big dictionary of dictionaries of of dictionaries of... and > it was convenient to recursively grab the storeString. But if I just > #storeString'd it, the string was big enough to make the compiler choke. I > ended up recursively sending asArray, and then grabbing static array > literals (this was in a Cuis image.) This was a *much* more compact > representation of the object in question, and the compiler took to it > handily. > At first, I felt the same way that you feel about the static array literals > about the dynamic array literals; I didn't have any reference point for the > syntax, it looked odd, and reminded me only of dotted pairs in Lisp... which > isn't exactly the most recognizable idiom in the world. > Over time, though, the sheer utility of the dynamic arrays changed my mind. > I still like having the static arrays for symbolic processing, though. > If you really have a great desire to remove the static array literal syntax, > I will offer one piece of advice: find a way to let people have their cake > and eat it too. Wouldn't it be cool if our literals could be loaded and > unloaded as easily as changing a hat? I think you might even start seeing > more experimentation with new literal syntaxen. > It's that old mathematician's trick: if you can find a way to solve the more > general problem, you can eliminate a bunch of subproblems in one stroke. > Why not investigate making Squeak's syntax more modular? :) Yes, indeed! And, in fact, someone has put a lot of work into that very task recently, namely Lukas Renggli's thesis. LanguageBoxes [1] promises to allow the extension and composition of grammars with configurable scope - you may scope an extension per-method, per-class, per-package or per-image. Lukas gives an example of embedding SQLite's syntax into Smalltalk's... and then embedding Smalltalk literals within SQLite's grammar. (Yes, I also think the example's crazy - and that's why it's a _good_ example, showing what one can do.) TANSTAAFL kicks in here though: Pharo's moved on from when Lukas wrote his work, so LanguageBoxes (and Helvetia, on which it's based) no longer load, even into Pharo 1.1 images, for which Helvetia was written. So in my task list I've put a plan of action for making LanguageBoxes useful once again, namely splitting its packages into a core, with Pharo and Squeak extension packages. It's a big job, so if anyone else is interested, I'd be happy to share the workload :) I don't propose we include LanguageBoxes into Trunk - it's too big a chunk of code - but I would like to make it easy for language experimenters to use Squeak to experiment, and so having LanguageBoxes be able to plug into Trunk. One of the things on which LanguageBoxes depends is the RB AST tree. We've seen talk every now and then of bringing RB back into the image. Eliot proposed that someone fix up Browser's dependence on indices and, in return, would integrate RB back into the Browser. It seems to me (and I haven't looked at the differences between Squeak's AST and RB's) that we could win big by switching the ASTs we use? frank [1] http://scg.unibe.ch/research/helvetia > 2011/5/31 info(a)tomsik.cz <info(a)tomsik.cz> >> >> What's current state of squeak evolution? >> >> I do get the idea of squeak as independent-smalltalk, >> which CAN evolve without being fully compatible with the rest of st world >> (which is IMHO the only way to deliver better language) >> >> I've read few dozens of interesting proposals in here >> (like prototypes and dropping array literals) >> >> And while both being pretty interesting I would really like >> to see smalltalk with [1 . 2 . 3] asArray syntax instead of ugly >> and IMHO useless #(1 2 3) >> >> Syntax should be further discussed, yes, at least because [1, 2, 3] >> looks much better, but what's the chance of adopting something like this? >> >> What's the chance of saying: "guys, we made mistake, #(1 2 3) have really >> no advantage over blocks (except of performance), so let's drop it, let's >> simplify the language, let's make it even easier to learn for newcomers." >> >> Is something like this "part of plan"? Or is really the "make a new fork >> if >> you consider it useful" the only way to go? >> >> Because writing meta-program for transforming existing code shouldn't be >> so hard. Also "dropping" something could be just part of "changelog", even >> with >> appropriate convertor for legacy code. And I doubt that new fork could >> make it >> through without massive marketing. Even squeak is poorly known. >> >> Please do not take it as offense, ST is one of best languages I've ever >> encountered, >> but every language can be even better, and we should try. >> > > > > -- > Casey Ransberger > > > >

1 0

smalltalk evolution
by info＠tomsik.cz 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

What's current state of squeak evolution? I do get the idea of squeak as independent-smalltalk, which CAN evolve without being fully compatible with the rest of st world (which is IMHO the only way to deliver better language) I've read few dozens of interesting proposals in here (like prototypes and dropping array literals) And while both being pretty interesting I would really like to see smalltalk with [1 . 2 . 3] asArray syntax instead of ugly and IMHO useless #(1 2 3) Syntax should be further discussed, yes, at least because [1, 2, 3] looks much better, but what's the chance of adopting something like this? What's the chance of saying: "guys, we made mistake, #(1 2 3) have really no advantage over blocks (except of performance), so let's drop it, let's simplify the language, let's make it even easier to learn for newcomers." Is something like this "part of plan"? Or is really the "make a new fork if you consider it useful" the only way to go? Because writing meta-program for transforming existing code shouldn't be so hard. Also "dropping" something could be just part of "changelog", even with appropriate convertor for legacy code. And I doubt that new fork could make it through without massive marketing. Even squeak is poorly known. Please do not take it as offense, ST is one of best languages I've ever encountered, but every language can be even better, and we should try.

15 52

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: You said you'd get back to me
by Casey Ransberger 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Mr. Lewis, My deepest apologies. Please forgive me. I wrote him directly, and he CC'd the entire world. I was afraid, so I made the experience public. It was a selfish self-defense tactic, and you are absolutely correct: I am guilty as charged with regard to having brought garbage onto the lists. Yeah, may as well CC the whole world on this one too: I'm sorry, everyone. On Jun 1, 2011, at 5:55 AM, "David T. Lewis" <lewis(a)mail.msen.com> wrote: > <off list> > > Casey, this message is completely inappropriate. It is personal, it is > insulting, and there should be no place for it any of these forums. It > also reflects very badly on the rest of the Squeak community. Please > keep this stuff off the mailing lists. > > Dave > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:01:33AM -0700, Casey Ransberger wrote: >> Inline >> >> On Jun 1, 2011, at 2:35 AM, St??phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >> >>> Dear Casey >>> >>>> So, are you done with whatever crap you had to do with the French military? >>> >>> This is not crap. Sorry but this is the security of our institute and its services. >>> Non inria people cannot log on INRIA servers. This is the rule. I forgot to let you know. >> >> I paid respect to you and that at the time. You told me to wait, and I did, but I'm done waiting on you. You said you'd get back to me, but clearly I was not important enough to you for you to keep your word. >> >>> >>>> Can I get started on CI for Squeak now? >>> >>> I do not think so because nobody from our team has the time for that. >> >> I kind of have to wonder if you didn't think you were posting on the Pharo list when you replied (I imagine, half awake) to my message to squeak-dev. >> >> I must have gotten confused and thought I should listen to you. >> >>>> Are you at liberty to explain why you chose to block my work over a local governmental issue that shouldn't concern the Squeak community or any of its efforts in the least? >>> >>> I think that your sentence above is a bit out of concern. >>> I did not block anything. Now why do you think that the squeak community could pretend anything on us? >> >> You asked me to wait, and you're the president of ESUG or something, so I waited for you like a good dog. >> >>>> I'm not French and frankly I'm a bit livid that I've been waiting on you and the French government for this long: no government should ever stall open source work. >>> >>> This is not the point. >> >> What's the point then, sir? I'm dying to know what it is. >> >>>> I'm a bit confused by the month of silence I've gotten out of you. >>> >>> I have a life too and not doing pharo all the time. I have been promoted and I have a lot more duties. >> >> Oh, right you're busy. I think I mentioned quite a lot of respect for the work you're doing in my first messages to you: did you read them? >> >>>> Aren't you the president of ESUG or something? Don't you have an obligation to unblock people in the Smalltalk community or does that responsibility only extend to Pharo in your mind? >>> >>> I really do not like the contents and implication of the sentence above. >>> I did probably more to squeak than you and from that I imagine that people should respect me. >>> I did more to Smalltalk than people over the last 10 years so if you do not realize that, think about it. >> >> I am not implying anything. I asked you a few pretty direct questions, and you're avoiding answering them in a very passive-aggressive way, which is kind of difficult to get behind. >> >> As far as your illustrious work with Smalltalk, are you referencing the crap traits implementation or the actual act of dividing our community in half? >> >> Alan Kay doesn't seem to have a hell of a lot of problems with answering my questions in a timely manner, and he isn't running ESUG, so at this point, after slogging through the harder, more rigorous route to an MIT license, I kind of have to wonder what your real problem actually is. >> >> >>>> Seriously, man, what the hell? >>> >>> Seriously I strongly suggest you not to insult me because I do not like that. >> >> I'm not insulting you. I'm calling you out into the midway, sir. There's a difference. >> >> Come out and dance if you know how sir, elsewise get the hell off the stage. >> >>> Stef >>>

2 1

Protocols-fbs.35: rotten
by Frank Shearar 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Hi, As part of my recent Browser refactoring - getting rid of messageListIndex etc. in favour of selectedMessageName etc. - Protocols-fbs.35 and its test suite ProtocolsTest-fbs.1 got lost in the cruft. They have rotted a bit. I suggest we move them to Treated, and I'll resubmit unrotted versions of same. frank

2 1

Re: You said you'd get back to me
by Casey Ransberger 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

Inline On Jun 1, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Dear Casey > >> So, are you done with whatever crap you had to do with the French military? > > This is not crap. Sorry but this is the security of our institute and its services. > Non inria people cannot log on INRIA servers. This is the rule. I forgot to let you know. I paid respect to you and that at the time. You told me to wait, and I did, but I'm done waiting on you. You said you'd get back to me, but clearly I was not important enough to you for you to keep your word. > >> Can I get started on CI for Squeak now? > > I do not think so because nobody from our team has the time for that. I kind of have to wonder if you didn't think you were posting on the Pharo list when you replied (I imagine, half awake) to my message to squeak-dev. I must have gotten confused and thought I should listen to you. >> Are you at liberty to explain why you chose to block my work over a local governmental issue that shouldn't concern the Squeak community or any of its efforts in the least? > > I think that your sentence above is a bit out of concern. > I did not block anything. Now why do you think that the squeak community could pretend anything on us? You asked me to wait, and you're the president of ESUG or something, so I waited for you like a good dog. >> I'm not French and frankly I'm a bit livid that I've been waiting on you and the French government for this long: no government should ever stall open source work. > > This is not the point. What's the point then, sir? I'm dying to know what it is. >> I'm a bit confused by the month of silence I've gotten out of you. > > I have a life too and not doing pharo all the time. I have been promoted and I have a lot more duties. Oh, right you're busy. I think I mentioned quite a lot of respect for the work you're doing in my first messages to you: did you read them? >> Aren't you the president of ESUG or something? Don't you have an obligation to unblock people in the Smalltalk community or does that responsibility only extend to Pharo in your mind? > > I really do not like the contents and implication of the sentence above. > I did probably more to squeak than you and from that I imagine that people should respect me. > I did more to Smalltalk than people over the last 10 years so if you do not realize that, think about it. I am not implying anything. I asked you a few pretty direct questions, and you're avoiding answering them in a very passive-aggressive way, which is kind of difficult to get behind. As far as your illustrious work with Smalltalk, are you referencing the crap traits implementation or the actual act of dividing our community in half? Alan Kay doesn't seem to have a hell of a lot of problems with answering my questions in a timely manner, and he isn't running ESUG, so at this point, after slogging through the harder, more rigorous route to an MIT license, I kind of have to wonder what your real problem actually is. >> Seriously, man, what the hell? > > Seriously I strongly suggest you not to insult me because I do not like that. I'm not insulting you. I'm calling you out into the midway, sir. There's a difference. Come out and dance if you know how sir, elsewise get the hell off the stage. > Stef >

3 2

Jump to page: