Squeakfoundation April 2023

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

1 participants
7 discussions

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

say) of it I totally agree. SM1.0x is very simple and works mostly because of that AND the fact that it has a GUI inside Squeak - a very important feature for Squeakers. And now that it is easily bootstrapped from within stock Squeak it has gained even more momentum. The community has helped out with addons, fixes and related stuff - and of course by publishing packages and using it. But noone (but me) has really dug into SM itself yet - I am waiting for that to happen still. I have a few volunteers lined up though, we just haven't had time yet to "sit down" and get cranking. > > Assuming we can resolve that issue, I'd be willing to make sure Squeak was > > properly represented on FreePAN. > > Great. Volunteered then! I'll put you down as the Squeak Content > Manager. > > One thing we're doing is writing all the tools to build freepan in > different languages. It would be neat to see some Squeak tools. I need > an upload server. Seems like something you're good at. This last paragraph got me a bit puzzled - could you elaborate? Tools? An upload server is trivial in Squeak - but I am not sure I know what you mean by it. > Find me on irc (see link on freepan.org) and let's discuss it further. I will check if you are there later today. Unfortunately I am in Sweden so I normally don't "match" timezone-wise... > Cheers, Brian Cheers, Göran

1 0

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

missing. One is support for socket options and one support for security stuff in file access. Both are not hard to add but can be painful if missing. That said, two extra thoughts. For one thing, it'd be nice to have a version that doesn't put 82 classes into "reorganize me" - makes it really hard to grok this stuff for someone who has no idea how to reorganize flow ;-) Secondly, I am scared to death about the issue of backward compatibility. I urge you to consider leaving the current streams and sockets basically intact and rather have flow be an _alternative_ to instead of a _replacement_ of the current classes. From what I can see there are only very few places affected where global names collide and if that's the entire problem someone ought to be able to come up with a few alternative names. With the current version of flow you will instantly break any code that - for example - uses "FileStream readOnlyFileNamed: 'foo.bar'" or "Socket newTCP" (and believe me, there are plenty of those in Croquet and if you need another instructive example just try to install flow two times ;-) I can understand that providing a full compatibility layer in flow may be neither doable nor desirable but that's only another argument for leaving the current classes intact to the point that there is at least a chance of running existing code. The entire situation here strikes me of being amazingly similar to the backward compatibility issues with modules - in both cases fundamental notions are being replaced instead of augmented. Let's try hard not to repeat this debacle. Cheers, - Andreas > (This is a draft I think we should post to the squeak-dev to generate > the main discussion there. If you guys have comments/additional issues > to raise...) > > As I noted before, a few people have requested that the Flow work by > Craig be integrated into the base image. > > This work: > - Replaces the primitive interface to sockets and other External > Resources > - Refactors the stream hierarchy > > I've had a few concerns that the changes might create too much change > all at once, considering that many things use the stream hierarchy. > After speaking to Craig about these issue, it seems that (Craig, please > correct me if I'm wrong here)- > 1. The new streams implement all the old protocols, so that the main > compatibility problem should be direct references to the old class > names. This is easy to fix incrementally for packages, and fairly > quickly for the image itself. > 2. The package as it is now can coexist with the existing libraries, > making testing quite feasible at low risk. > > So I guess this move should be pretty easy. Open questions - > 1. Should we do it? > 2. How do we test to minimize risk? > 3. When? > > 1. Do or not? > If people know of any general objections/problems with this code, it's > best to put them in the open now. > > I'm not qualified to answer about the benefits of the new primitive > interfaces, I'm quite ignorant in these things. John M has (IIUC) spoken > in favor of it. Could we get some more input from the experts? > > About the stream refactorings, I think several people have used Flow to > develop their own applications. Luciano has mentioned that he's used it > for several and liked it. More evaluations would be useful here. > > 2. Testing > As to format, Craig has agreed to post these changes on SM in the > precise form he'd prefer to issue the proposed updates. As to how to > make sure it doesn't cause problems for this or that package or > application - that's up to you guys out there that use your sockets for > more than reading mail... ideas? > > 3. When? > Probably not in 3.4 (just to keep the release finite and near), but > possibly in 3.5. This depends on Craig posting on SM in the proposed > format, and mostly on when we get enough testing input. > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!

1 0

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

be a "package" of its own (ie, have its own PackageInfo namespace). I wouldn't mind having the repository be able to store arbitrary associated files with each package; this could also be used to attach changesets. Not really sure what the interface to this would be though. And there are other things that are higher priority (like branching). Ideally, of course, the packages would all be in the repository, and an ENH would just be a branch. Avi

1 0

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

Robert Hirschfeld Markus Gaelli Felix Franz Andreas Raab Marcus Denker Hans Beck (http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeak-ev/34) -- Marcus Denker marcus(a)ira.uka.de -- Squeak! http://squeakland.org

1 0

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

and dozens of people on this list have talked about how important this project is. Still, contributions have been minimal. By contributions I mean stuff that has the quality to go into the update stream. Recently I also heard veteran Squeakers say that they intentionally take a wait-and-see approach, hoping that "problems will go away". I know of no facility that makes problems go away by themselves. I also see people posting lists of things they want, with no commitment to contribute them. Who do you expect to write this code? I think I know the answer to that. Even though I've been very clear that I only have minor opportunities to work more on this, people seem to expect me to do all the work. Let me state this again: I will not do any more work on the modules. To make this clear, I resign from the SqF modules project now with immediate effect. Hopefully this will make the point to people that I will not drive this forward in the future. Do not expect me to make any more contributions. If you want this to move forward you have to do the work. I will not do it. I have already done much more than I committed to do when I started. I have no interest in programming modules, other than that I want to use the results, much like others here. I do not enjoy doing this work. I especially do not like the slandering and backstabbing that has occurred, sometimes from people who I thought more of. It is time for the rest of the Squeak community to put their money where their mouths are, or where they have been in the past at least. I believe that the result of this will be that no further contributions are made, and the effort will die, in spite of all the promises and all the talk. Please prove me wrong. Henrik

1 0

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

the image. ESUG will certainly proposes some actions to support Smalltalk in the next days and we hope to make money to give part of it to the foundation if such nice entity can receive money. Stef Looking for the chief whip....Yes Cees...this should be a bit my masochist part.

1 0

None
by None 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

deep conviction, the purpose of the community. An effective statement of purpose will be a clear, commonly understood statement of that which identifies and binds the community together as worthy of pursuit. When properly done, it can usually be expressed in a single sentence. Participants will say about the purpose, 'If we could achieve that, my life would have meaning.' " A good reason to work from the point of purpose rather than projects is to encourage the broadest support for the foundation. Also, needs change over time, so a purpose linked too closely to a specific project may turn obsolete quickly. A good purpose will be one that twenty years from now will still make sense and be worth supporting. To an extent, a really good purpose is more like a process than a goal. [For anyone with real experience with chaordic processes, like Cees, feel free to chime in with corrections and/or more process suggestions.] Here are some examples to distinguish "purpose" from "project": "Stable Squeak" is a project. "Better Documentation" is a project. "Hosting Conferences" is a project. "Ensuring Reliable Technology" is a purpose. "Advancing Computer Literacy" is a purpose. "Encouraging Collaboration" is a purpose. "Enabling Humane Technology" is a purpose. "Supporting Transparent Computing" is a purpose. "Promoting World Peace" is a purpose. If no one proposes a purpose in a few of days, I will post my own one sentence suggestion. If you can only think of projects right now, try to think of what that project really accomplishes. For example, what would having better documentation accomplish? Purpose related ideas mentioned already in other threads either directly or indirectly (derived from asking what projects accomplish) could be "harvested" and put here. Here are some examples of purposes from chaordic groups taken from: http://www.chaordic.org/partner.html "To restore and enhance an enduring Marine System supporting a healthy diversity and abundance of marine life and human uses through a self-organizing and self-governing organization." "To discover, integrate and implement theories and practices for the interdependent development of people and their institutions." "To promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, end religiously-motivated violence and create cultures of peace, justice, and healing for the Earth and all living beings." "To effect and enable constructive, systemic change leading to a more just, equitable, sustainable society." "To enable people to create food and farming systems which improve and sustain ecological, economic and social health through systemic, community-based, self-organizing governance." "To enable the effective, equitable flow and ethical use of accurate, accessible geographic information to improve the health of the Earth and of our economies and communities." Rather than suggest a purpose myself, I'd be curious to see other people's comments first. Please use this thread to post one sentence statements of purpose and related discussion. Hopefully these purpose proposals can then be further refined further (into other one sentence statements). I think it is a good idea to discuss projects and other issues too, just in other threads. This process is supposed to be iterative in terms of later steps (detailed at the first URL). As people come up with suggestions for projects or other ideas in other threads, the purpose may need to be revisited to include them. Or, if you can't come up with a whole sentence, then post an idea or sentence fragment that should go into such a one sentence purpose. They don't have to be completely Squeak related if they Squeak as part of a larger picture. Proposing silly or funny or overly grandiose purposes for a Squeak Foundation are OK to get everyone's mental juices flowing. -Paul Fernhout Kurtz-Fernhout Software ========================================================= Developers of custom software and educational simulations Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation April 2023