On 5/12/12, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> got three days meeting this week so crawling to get my brain aligned with
> fun again…
> I will read your article. I will also look at STON because I like the object
> literal syntax too :).
Fine...!
> (note that I'm not changing my mind - I still do not get
got three days meeting this week so crawling to get my brain aligned with fun
again…
I will read your article. I will also look at STON because I like the object
literal syntax too :).
(note that I'm not changing my mind - I still do not get why I need dictionary
for method meta data -
but we a
On 09/05/2012 09:08, Göran Krampe wrote:
Ok, regarding changing the syntax of Smalltalk:
- Personally I don't care that much for ANSI. It's dead. I think
Smalltalk needs to evolve and bloody hell, you have *Traits* in Pharo,
that is a HUGE difference compared to a bit of literal changes. ;)
Göran Krampe wrote
>
> I don't want to sound like a broken record - but you do realize that I
> wrote about this in the article and mentioned this exact syntax?
>
> I know, the article was a tad long - but just go to planet.smalltalk.org
> and search down to "Sidestory: Adding literal Dictiona
On 05/09/2012 03:55 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
I would like to share my quick two cents regarding this subject.
1st cent. I would stick with JSON. Even though I find STON slick, I would
not deviate from something that is mainstream and all Smalltalk dialects
already support.
2nd cent. A Di
I would like to share my quick two cents regarding this subject.
1st cent. I would stick with JSON. Even though I find STON slick, I would
not deviate from something that is mainstream and all Smalltalk dialects
already support.
2nd cent. A Dictionary literal syntax would be useful too. I would
I will read your article I missed it originally and after I was running to
catch my train.
On 5/9/12, Göran Krampe wrote:
> Hi Stephane and all!
>
> On 05/09/2012 08:29 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Parsing and compiling + execution are three different actions.
Parsing: stream -> tokens* but you know it.
>>>
>>> Of course. What I mean is that depending on how you "parse" a Sma
Hi Stephane and all!
On 05/09/2012 08:29 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Parsing and compiling + execution are three different actions.
Parsing: stream -> tokens* but you know it.
Of course. What I mean is that depending on how you "parse" a Smalltalk literal
you may or may not be susceptible t
>>
>> Parsing and compiling + execution are three different actions.
>> Parsing: stream -> tokens* but you know it.
>
> Of course. What I mean is that depending on how you "parse" a Smalltalk
> literal you may or may not be susceptible to a security hole. If you just
> blindly use the full Com
On 5/9/12, Göran Krampe wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> First - I am not fighting nor pushing in any direction. I just find the
> subject interesting.
>
> On 05/08/2012 10:59 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
:) there is no security problem just that gemstone does not have a
parser. Because parsing canno
On 5/8/12, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
> Stéphane,
>
> On 08 May 2012, at 22:59, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>> Finally and I still did not get a clear answer: why there is a need for
>> dictionary syntax to store method meta data.
>
> (I still think we are all discussing different things, and I do
Hi all!
First - I am not fighting nor pushing in any direction. I just find the
subject interesting.
On 05/08/2012 10:59 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
:) there is no security problem just that gemstone does not have a parser.
Because parsing cannot be a security hole
this is blind data interpr
i agree with Stef.. about method metadata.
imo array literals is more than enough to encode any data.
yes, it may require a separate layer to convert it into instances of
other classes ,like
Dictionary, Author, Timestamp, PreviousVersionLink (+ add what you desire).
So, you basically need to write
>
>> Finally and I still did not get a clear answer: why there is a need for
>> dictionary syntax to store method meta data.
>
> (I still think we are all discussing different things, and I do understand
> your point, and I myself don't want to force STON on anybody).
Yes this is not what I m
Stéphane,
On 08 May 2012, at 22:59, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Finally and I still did not get a clear answer: why there is a need for
> dictionary syntax to store method meta data.
(I still think we are all discussing different things, and I do understand your
point, and I myself don't want t
>>>
>>
>> :) there is no security problem just that gemstone does not have a parser.
>> Because parsing cannot be a security hole
>> this is blind data interpretation that is a problem. This is why Github got
>> problems and I imagine that the code was probably passed in JSON or similar
>> for
On 05/08/2012 09:01 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On May 8, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Göran Krampe wrote:
On 05/08/2012 07:46 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
for me I can understand that people want a format to exchange objects and that
they want to use STON but
I do not understand why we need that to sto
phane Ducasse"
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:03:18 PM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] A comparative article (was Re: [squeak-dev]
[ANN] STON - Smalltalk Object Notation)
|
|
| On May 8, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
|
| > :):):) f
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> | Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:46:08 AM
> | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] A comparative article (was Re: [squeak-dev]
> [ANN] STON - Smalltalk Object Notation)
> |
> | for me I can understand that people want a format to exchange objects
>
On May 8, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Göran Krampe wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 07:46 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> for me I can understand that people want a format to exchange objects and
>> that they want to use STON but
>> I do not understand why we need that to store metadata when a simple array
>> works
On 05/08/2012 07:46 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
for me I can understand that people want a format to exchange objects and that
they want to use STON but
I do not understand why we need that to store metadata when a simple array
works. Probably we love to
load our boat with extra readers and wri
:):):) for the correct definition of "works" I agree :):):)
Dale
- Original Message -
| From: "Stéphane Ducasse"
| To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 10:46:08 AM
| Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] A comparative article (was Re: [squeak-d
for me I can understand that people want a format to exchange objects and that
they want to use STON but
I do not understand why we need that to store metadata when a simple array
works. Probably we love to
load our boat with extra readers and writers.
Stef
On May 8, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Sven Va
(The paper was indeed just updated a couple of days ago).
On 08 May 2012, at 13:29, Göran Krampe wrote:
> - In general I believe in 99% of the cases the parsing system has to know
> what it is parsing, how the JSON looks and how it should be mapped onto
> objects. Making the JSON parser itsy bi
Hey Sven!
On 05/08/2012 11:07 AM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
Here are some quick reactions and factual corrections:
- I don't want to push STON on anybody, I don't want to go on a crusade
promoting it.
- please read the, much extended, paper
https://github.com/svenvc/ston/blob/mas
On 8 May 2012 10:07, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>
> On 08 May 2012, at 09:55, Göran Krampe wrote:
>
>> Sven - sorry for beating down a bit on STON in that article, nothing
>> personal and I love all the stuff you have done, I just have a hard time
>> placing STON in my toolbox. If you can give
On 08 May 2012, at 09:55, Göran Krampe wrote:
> Sven - sorry for beating down a bit on STON in that article, nothing personal
> and I love all the stuff you have done, I just have a hard time placing STON
> in my toolbox. If you can give me good arguments why I am dead wrong - please
> do! ;)
Hi guys!
I just posted an article about JSON/STON/Literal arrays/Tirade - and it
is probably easiest to read at planet.smalltalk.org (my blog has a
rather bad theme I realized):
http://planet.smalltalk.org
...or at my blog:
http://goran.krampe.se/2012/05/08/literal-arrays-vs-json-vs-ston-vs
29 matches
Mail list logo
