Sorry about the slow reply. I assumed the best intentions (hence the smiley
face) but wanted to make sure folks knew there was more than one
contributor (we have a whole list.)

As for your "Fermi barrier of complexity" well. I don't know exactly how
you intended this metaphor.

We can look at some of the more obvious numbers (number of classes, number
of methods per class, etc) and compare/contrast with other dialects, but I
think I can safely say that we're not doing too bad so far. Experience thus
far has shown that most things port to Cuis pretty cleanly, though the UI
usually has to be rewritten, and often convenience methods need to be
brought over, etc. While there are some features that we've (temporarily)
yanked because we wanted to get rid of crufty code and/or code that doesn't
grok a zoomable UI, Cuis is otherwise a very reliable and consistent system
with people who will often supply support just for good sport.

More importantly, I think, is that Cuis folks want to be a part of the
Squeak community. We're a *distribution*.

Anyhoo, I figured I'd look at some numbers here. Someone should correct my
incantations here, because these numbers are just too good to believe! I
must be doing something wrong.

So I'm tallying classes and traits in Squeak and Pharo with:

Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits size

...and in Cuis, since we don't have Traits, with:

Smalltalk allClasses size

I realize that Traits aren't exactly classes, and that this is overall a
relatively weak single metric for complexity, but just to show the
difference in magnitude, please bear with me. FWIW, Pharo, which uses
Traits extensively, only has  85 of them AFAICT, so they shouldn't skew the
numbers too much.

Squeak 4.4:   2148
Pharo 2.0:      3301
Cuis 4.1:         655

I think just from that it's easy to see the signal:noise ratio in Cuis, but
of course there's plenty of room for a deeper study and more metrics
(cyclomatic complexity, etcetera.) One useful insight might be: Squeak's
core should be able to get as small or nearly as small as Cuis is now (at
*least.*) I think this is good news all around.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto <
casimiro.barreto at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20-05-2013 03:34, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> >> After the schism,
> >> at least two other versions of "baby squeaks" appeared. One is dealt by
> >> a single developer. I hope him the best luck in the world.
> > Cuis is supported by a very small community of deeply passionate people,
> not a single developer. Saying that is like saying that Squeak was dealt
> exclusively by Andreas Raab when he had the most commits.
> >
> > In other words: what am I, chopped liver? :)
> >
> >
> Reading it again, I noticed that the English translation does not map
> exactly on the Brazilian Portuguese idea it should transmit. Sounds like
> I meant some kind of irony. That's not the case. Regarding Cuis its idea
> (which I enjoy) I really hope Cuis community the best luck in world (as
> in "espero que os caras se deêm bem"). My concern is that the community
> is small and at some point will need some energy to break through the
> "Fermi barrier of complexity".
>
> CdAB
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Casey Ransberger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130524/05b97cba/attachment.htm