On 2012-12-20 2:23 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
> FYI, I did post my remarks/concerns on the Squeak and Pharo mailing 
> lists regarding this subject a year ago but it just seems like nobody 
> read or did care.
>
> Secondly, as I said, a year ago, we should definitely have *separate* 
> code repositories for Squeak and Pharo.  I just closed Squeak 30 
> seconds ago, being totally fed up with packages that wouldn't load...  
> Right now, both environments are polluting the code of the other and 
> it's nonsense...  You know the kind of horror story where version 7 
> (Squeak) fixes version 6 (Pharo) that now became version 8 (Pharo 
> again) but that will be fixed as a combo of version 6 and 8 for Squeak?
>
Yes, I agree. It's a problem. And all the points you make are valid. And 
this time, thank you, you came up with some examples with things 
examples you like and would like to see. Others reading this will find 
that useful for the process of finding a solution.

I will say this, though. Sometimes, it's not as easy as it seems. By 
that I mean there can be a technical solution available that people do 
not want to use. They just don't like it: the interface; the experience; 
the process, whatever. That's SqueakMap. When the SqueakMap advocate 
shows up the first thing he will say is: "SqueakMap solves all those 
problems. It does all that." And you know what, he has a point.

But if people don't want to use it... You see, Benoit, the problem is 
less about code and about something else. But smart are people thinking 
about this. They want a solution too.

Chris
> Can't we have something simple like the Cincom Public Repository ???
>
> Could you commit Ruby code to the CRAN (Comprehensive R Arcive 
> Network) ?  No!  You know why?  Those are 2 different beasts, just 
> like Squeak and Pharo.  And seeing at which speed Pharo is moving away 
> from "standard" (for lack of a better word) Smalltalk, this "problem 
> will happen more and more and more.
>
> How useful is Squeak if all the code available is slowly becoming 
> "Pharo-only friendly" ?
>
> In other words, we should setup our *own* SQUEAK ONLY repository, make 
> sure people set a "platform target" (say Squeak 4.4 or 4.3) for 
> migration (and tell the project owners that they should make an effort 
> to port their code to Squeak 4.x) and start from there...
>
> Now, try to imagine a newbie who's trying to load  a single package 
> (say ODBC), connect to a database, select one row and experiment with 
> Smalltalk...  Oh, wait!  ScriptLoader loadFFi doesn't work! Oh wait! I 
> read on the wiki that I had to compile the fields for 
> ExternalStructure by hand because of a bug...  Oh wait, the ODBCEnh 
> contains Pharo stuff...  Oh wait, Package X contains references to 
> stuff that is "Pharo only".  Oh wait, I'll use this other tool...  
> Nah, contains Pharo stuff again... I'll then use package Y then...  Oh 
> wait, what's that Zinc stuff ?  Well, I guess you get the picture...
>
> Now, compare this with VisualWorks and the Cincom Public 
> Repository...  Connect, load, done.
>
> -----------------
> Benoit St-Jean
> Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
> A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
> (Albert Einstein)
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Chris Cunnington <smalltalktelevision at gmail.com>
>     *To:* squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>     *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:06:36 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [squeak-dev] Squeaksource, Squeak and Pharo..
>
>     On 2012-12-20 12:25 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
>>     How useful...  This is the kind of stuff that makes me wanna shout!
>>
>>     <complaint>
>>
>>     I just installed Squeak 4.3 to migrate some code I had on an
>>     older Squeak 4.x image...
>>
>>     Loaded some of the tools I use, like ScriptManager to realize...
>>     That the newest versions are for Pharo! With references to stuff
>>     that doesn't exist in Squeak.
>>
>>     In other words, the more commits to existing project in
>>     Squeaksource (or anywhere else where the code used to be "Squeak
>>     friendly" and/or developed for Squeak in the first place) the
>>     Pharo people do, the less and less those projects will work with
>>     Squeak!
>>
>>     It's just as if Volkswagen would take over the manufacturing of
>>     parts for Honda and would adapt all parts for THEIR engines... 
>>     If I have a Honda, what can I do?  :(
>>
>>     With Pharo moving away from Squeak (and most other Smalltalks in
>>     fact), if we don't find a way to clearly split what is "Pharo
>>     friendly" from what is "Squeak friendly" (I resisted using the
>>     word "compatible"), where are we heading ???
>>
>>     </complaint>
>>
>>     P.S.  This is going to be a nightmare if we don't act before the
>>     Pharo people have "adapted" tons of stuff to *their* environment...
>>     -----------------
>>     Benoit St-Jean
>>     Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
>>     A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
>>     (Albert Einstein)
>>
>>
>     Yea, it's an interesting point. I hear you shouting, but who are
>     you shouting to? You've found a problem, and somebody^(TM) is
>     supposed to solve if for you. Is that correct? Who?
>
>     I'm on the Squeak Board and from my point of view, you're
>     observation would be more compelling if you proposed a solution to
>     what you've discovered. If you just say it's a problem and
>     somebody^(TM) should fix it, I'm not that interested. Especially
>     when you cannot even take the time to think of a few criteria of
>     the problem that may be used to fix it.
>
>     Here's what I can tell you. Squeak infrastructure is not
>     responsible for every project in existence. You're first solution
>     would be to talk to the maintainers of that project. None of the
>     maintainers of ScriptManager are Squeakers. Might that tell you
>     something?
>
>     http://www.squeaksource.com/ScriptManager
>
>
>     The Squeak Board is in the process of looking at this issue,
>     though. And I can say what is on the horizon. The first thing we
>     will have is community supported packages tested regularly in
>     images in the Squeak CI server. There will be a list of packages,
>     a top twenty list, say, of packages that will be known to be the
>     responsibility of the community.
>
>     Now, wouldn't it be good if there was something like SqueakMap,
>     something separate from Squeaksource and SqueakSource3, that was a
>     Squeak-only location for packages? They you'd know that you had
>     come to the right "app store". We're working on that too. But I
>     don't think it will be SqueakMap, which in my opinion has run its
>     course. So were looking at this issue. But SqueakMap is a
>     contentious issue. Very contentious. There are those who would
>     like to put a stick of dynamite in it. And those who get extremely
>     incensed at even the thought. (Actually, even the word, in public,
>     like I just did. Counting down in ... four...three ... two...oh,
>     look!)
>
>     So, we're looking at that. And in the near future, say Squeak 4.5,
>     there will be better guidelines around these problems.
>
>     You could load the same packages into the new Squeak4.3 that you
>     loaded before. If you want the latest Squeak in addition to the
>     latest versions of the packages, well, then I think you may need
>     to do some work. And when the infrastructure I just described is
>     in place, there will most certainly be packages that, all that new
>     infrastructure notwithstanding, will be nobody's responsibility
>     but yours and the actual package developer.
>
>     Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20121220/368e09dd/attachment-0001.htm