Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
Le 11/6/15 17:00, Stephan Eggermont a écrit : On 10/06/15 20:36, Trygve Reenskaug wrote: In which way is the Pharo technology that underlies Moose more complex than BabyIDE? Porting BabyIDE from Squeak 3.10 to 4.5 was hard because it extends the Squeak Parser and debugger and that this is unknown territory to me. There remains, of course, minor problems and bugs caused by changes in the various services offered by the Squeak kernel. Porting BabyIDE to Pharo is hard because: - we now have a different compiler and debugger - BabyIDE uses parts of Morphic that we changed and/or removed. - Nautilus doesn't easily support changing the syntax highlighter As key developers of Moose are also key developers of Pharo, a smooth transformation is something that should be expected or at least hoped for. This is not true. But I have something else than arguing... On the other hand, BabyIDE is much smaller than Moose. you do not appear to appreciate the need that programmers (your customers) have for a stable programming language. We try to provide for both the need to have a stable environment and the need to innovate and try new things. There is an inherent conflict there that we try to resolve by providing a continuous integration environment where we can get fast feedback on breaking changes. It works pretty well for the projects that have an active maintainer. Stephan Eggermont
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
I rest my case. --Trygve On 10.06.2015 20:57, Serge Stinckwich wrote: If I remember correctly, it was easy to port Moose from VW to Pharo, because there was a lot of tests. I'm currently working on porting another software from VW to Pharo without any tests and I'm suffering;-)
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
If I understand correctly, your case is that it is easier to move from Squeak to JavaScript than to move from Squeak to Pharo. I must be missing something important. Could you clarify? Cheers, Doru On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Trygve Reenskaug tryg...@ifi.uio.no wrote: I rest my case. --Trygve On 10.06.2015 20:57, Serge Stinckwich wrote: If I remember correctly, it was easy to port Moose from VW to Pharo, because there was a lot of tests. I'm currently working on porting another software from VW to Pharo without any tests and I'm suffering ;-) -- www.tudorgirba.com Every thing has its own flow
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
On 10/06/15 20:36, Trygve Reenskaug wrote: In which way is the Pharo technology that underlies Moose more complex than BabyIDE? Porting BabyIDE from Squeak 3.10 to 4.5 was hard because it extends the Squeak Parser and debugger and that this is unknown territory to me. There remains, of course, minor problems and bugs caused by changes in the various services offered by the Squeak kernel. Porting BabyIDE to Pharo is hard because: - we now have a different compiler and debugger - BabyIDE uses parts of Morphic that we changed and/or removed. - Nautilus doesn't easily support changing the syntax highlighter As key developers of Moose are also key developers of Pharo, a smooth transformation is something that should be expected or at least hoped for. On the other hand, BabyIDE is much smaller than Moose. you do not appear to appreciate the need that programmers (your customers) have for a stable programming language. We try to provide for both the need to have a stable environment and the need to innovate and try new things. There is an inherent conflict there that we try to resolve by providing a continuous integration environment where we can get fast feedback on breaking changes. It works pretty well for the projects that have an active maintainer. Stephan Eggermont
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Trygve Reenskaug tryg...@ifi.uio.no wrote: Stef, Why be sorry? It's great that you have a stable kernel in Pharo. Where do I find the definition of the Pharo public API? That is an interesting request coming from someone that In which way is the Pharo technology that underlies Moose more complex than BabyIDE? Porting BabyIDE from Squeak 3.10 to 4.5 was hard because it extends the Squeak Parser and debugger and that this is unknown territory to me. There remains, of course, minorproblems and bugs caused by changes in the various services offered by the Squeak kernel. It's clear that one port went without a hitch for you. It is not one port. We are developing Moose on top of Pharo since 7 years. Even though Moose depends quite deeply on the inner workings of Pharo (package model, code model, RB AST, inspector, debugger, canvas, text editor), we could consistently move it between successive versions with limited effort (typically measured in days). That does not mean that porting BabyIDE to Pharo will be equally simple. The comparison is not quite fair :). The point of Stef was about moving between versions of Pharo, not between Squeak and Pharo. And may be the people who did your port do not share my extensive ignorance of the Pharo innards and the nature of the changes in the release? I am not a Pharo creator. I was considering to become a Pharo user but reconsidered when I read what you say below. This was partly because I believe you underestimate the work needed to port BabyIDE to Pharo and partly because you do not appear to appreciate the need that programmers (your customers) have for a stable programming language. The choice belongs to you, but I do not quite understand your line of reasoning. What Stef said is that even if Pharo changes fast, there is evidence to show that even in larger projects moving between successive versions of Pharo is a handle-able undertaking. Now, about BabyIDE. I think it is certainly an interesting project, and it would be interesting to have it in Pharo. If you need help, you can always ask on the Pharo lists and you typically get the expected answers. Cheers, Doru Trygve On 09.06.2015 19:59, stepharo wrote: I'm sorry to say that Pharo public API does not change that much. We could port all Moose in one afternoon and Moose is certainly more complex :). Stef -- www.tudorgirba.com Every thing has its own flow
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
If I remember correctly, it was easy to port Moose from VW to Pharo, because there was a lot of tests. I'm currently working on porting another software from VW to Pharo without any tests and I'm suffering ;-) On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Trygve Reenskaug tryg...@ifi.uio.no wrote: Stef, Why be sorry? It's great that you have a stable kernel in Pharo. Where do I find the definition of the Pharo public API? In which way is the Pharo technology that underlies Moose more complex than BabyIDE? Porting BabyIDE from Squeak 3.10 to 4.5 was hard because it extends the Squeak Parser and debugger and that this is unknown territory to me. There remains, of course, minorproblems and bugs caused by changes in the various services offered by the Squeak kernel. It's clear that one port went without a hitch for you. That does not mean that porting BabyIDE to Pharo will be equally simple. And may be the people who did your port do not share my extensive ignorance of the Pharo innards and the nature of the changes in the release? I am not a Pharo creator. I was considering to become a Pharo user but reconsidered when I read what you say below. This was partly because I believe you underestimate the work needed to port BabyIDE to Pharo and partly because you do not appear to appreciate the need that programmers (your customers) have for a stable programming language. Trygve On 09.06.2015 19:59, stepharo wrote: I'm sorry to say that Pharo public API does not change that much. We could port all Moose in one afternoon and Moose is certainly more complex :). Stef -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
Stef, Why be sorry? It's great that you have a stable kernel in Pharo. Where do I find the definition of the Pharo public API? In which way is the Pharo technology that underlies Moose more complex than BabyIDE? Porting BabyIDE from Squeak 3.10 to 4.5 was hard because it extends the Squeak Parser and debugger and that this is unknown territory to me. There remains, of course, minorproblems and bugs caused by changes in the various services offered by the Squeak kernel. It's clear that one port went without a hitch for you. That does not mean that porting BabyIDE to Pharo will be equally simple. And may be the people who did your port do not share my extensive ignorance of the Pharo innards and the nature of the changes in the release? I am not a Pharo creator. I was considering to become a Pharo user but reconsidered when I read what you say below. This was partly because I believe you underestimate the work needed to port BabyIDE to Pharo and partly because you do not appear to appreciate the need that programmers (your customers) have for a stable programming language. Trygve On 09.06.2015 19:59, stepharo wrote: I'm sorry to say that Pharo public API does not change that much. We could port all Moose in one afternoon and Moose is certainly more complex :). Stef
Re: [Pharo-users] Mac Squeak binary virtual machine for Squeak 3.10.2
I'm sorry to say that Pharo public API does not change that much. We could port all Moose in one afternoon and Moose is certainly more complex :). Stef Le 9/6/15 18:07, Trygve Reenskaug a écrit : Hi Chris, I'm sorry to say that your advice didn't work. Worse: The Squeak community has lost a valuable contributor, a prime mover in the patterns and agile communities and the author of several books on OO. My friend wrote: /I still can’t find a version of Squeak for my Mac that will run Trygve’s current BabyIDE. At this point, even if one appears, it is obvious that my dependence on “the introvert Squeak community” will put me in a much more fragile position than with any of my other concept proofs. It will be extremely difficult to build a future on such fragile foundations./ I came to Xerox PARC and Smalltalk in 1978 where I made my contributions to Smalltalk-80. Since then, I have been working almost exclusively with Smalltalk. My company invested in a VW class library of more than 100,000 lines of Smalltalk code and used it in our consulting. A strong selling point was that our tenders were accompanied by a demo version of the program we offered to deliver. Our library and applications were repeatedly threatened by new versions of VW. The code is now dead; there is no VM that will run our old images. The investment is lost. I hoped Squeak would be better. It isn't. Squeak is less stable than VW ever was. My new programming paradigm, DCI, is supported by BabyIDE that runs under Squeak 3.10. I have ported BabyIDE to 4.5, but there are new bugs caused by differences between 3.10 and 4.5. The result is that I have reverted to 3.10 because it's too much hassle to run after the stream of Squeak releases. I thought Pharo would be better, but their mailing list conversations indicate that they do not understand that developers need a stable foundation for their work. The result is that I too leave Smalltalk and concentrate on other environments. A pity, because I still believe Smalltalk has the potential to become a superior environment for non-professional programmers. I am particularly thinking of children and experts such as computational chemists who use computers in their work. It's very painful, but I am now terminating development work in Squeak leave the Squeak and Pharo mailing lists. I will continue my work in some mainstream language. I have just done some work in Java with Netbeans and I am buying a book on JavaScript. It's heavy going, but better that working for the dustbin. Cheers --Trygve On 31.05.2015 16:52, Trygve Reenskaug wrote: Hi, A friend of mine is doing some experiments using a Mac and my program Baby IDE. BabyIDE is works under Squeak 3.10.2. Is there a binary virtual machine for a current Mac that he can use? On 31.05.2015 17:00, Chris Cunnington wrote: You need a non-Cog vm. I usually download any Etoys vm. [1] From there, drag it onto the vm or right click, choose “Open With” and choose Etoys. Chris [1] http://squeakland.org/download/
