On 18 Dec 2012, at 00:03, Tudor Girba wrote:
> It essentially depends on Glamour. Andrei and Damien looked at this issue,
> and it is essentially working with a few glitches. It will likely be
> available early in the new year.
Great, looking forward to it, and to Glamour/Moose coming to 2.0 a
It essentially depends on Glamour. Andrei and Damien looked at this issue, and
it is essentially working with a few glitches. It will likely be available
early in the new year.
Cheers,
Doru
On 17 Dec 2012, at 23:54, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2012, at 23:44, Tudor Girba wrote:
On 17 Dec 2012, at 23:44, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just in case someone wants to take a look: the GTDebugger is around and it is
> supposed to be readable and extensible (works in 1.4 for the moment):
> http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/glamorous-debugger-for-smalltalk-alpha/
Can you s
Hi,
Just in case someone wants to take a look: the GTDebugger is around and it is
supposed to be readable and extensible (works in 1.4 for the moment):
http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/glamorous-debugger-for-smalltalk-alpha/
Cheers,
Doru
On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:31, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi mike
last week andrei sat with ben and they got a first sketch of a debugger using
spec and the
model extracted from the debugger.
Then just after jorge visited us and ported/fixed Bifrost in 1.4 and 2.0 so we
will also have an
object-centric debugger.
Stef
On Dec 14, 2012, at 12:48 AM, M
Indeed we spent some time in Edinburgh looking at it :-) that was too long ago
:-(
The problem i see with the original debugger inherited from Squeak, in the
Pharo context, is that it is very sensitive to a lot of the core code in the
image. What this means is that the accelerated changes in Ph
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 10:30, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>> Now adrian I imagine that you saw that people worked on this bug and this is
>> a rather complex one.
>> So I would suggest to you to avoid to draw conclusions too fast.
>>
> yes, if i
On 13 December 2012 10:30, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Now adrian I imagine that you saw that people worked on this bug and this is
> a rather complex one.
> So I would suggest to you to avoid to draw conclusions too fast.
>
yes, if i remember, we tried to approach it at least once..
but unfortunat
Now adrian I imagine that you saw that people worked on this bug and this is a
rather complex one.
So I would suggest to you to avoid to draw conclusions too fast.
Stef
On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:28 PM, adrians wrote:
>
> Well, it just seems that I'm whining here instead of contributing, but if
>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:28 PM, adrians wrote:
>
> Well, it just seems that I'm whining here instead of contributing, but if
> the debugger is indeed a very (if not the most) useful tool which is used in
> pretty much every bit of fix-up work, fixing it if it is broken would have
> to come before
Well, it just seems that I'm whining here instead of contributing, but if
the debugger is indeed a very (if not the most) useful tool which is used in
pretty much every bit of fix-up work, fixing it if it is broken would have
to come before all else, no? Otherwise, any work that needs to be done u
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:58 AM, adrians wrote:
>
>
> Of course not all of what needs to be done in Pharo should be of at same
> priority. It makes sense to first fix the tools one uses for fixing
> everything else, so that one can speed up one's own work and at the same
> time open up the possib
Hi adrian
this is not that we do not want to fix issues. This is that some are killing us
while others are letting us to breath.
Now we can argue for hours about priority. The best things to do is
to try.
And I can tell you that the debugger is important for us - this is our best
friend. But
Of course not all of what needs to be done in Pharo should be of at same
priority. It makes sense to first fix the tools one uses for fixing
everything else, so that one can speed up one's own work and at the same
time open up the possibility for others (less skilled) to help out.
In any case I'
On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:39 PM, adrians wrote:
> Marcus,
>
> I guess you answered my question regarding priority - i.e. it's not right at
> the top. For myself, if I used one tool in everything I did, and it was
> broken, fixing it would have to be close to the number one thing to address,
> other
Marcus,
I guess you answered my question regarding priority - i.e. it's not right at
the top. For myself, if I used one tool in everything I did, and it was
broken, fixing it would have to be close to the number one thing to address,
otherwise every job would take longer than it has to. This, unfo
On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:10 PM, adrians wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
> I figured it must be the complexity of fixing the debugger that's keeping it
> in the broken state that it is for this long. Mainly I wanted to get a sense
> of how important is fixing this relative to the other things that need
> fix
On 11 December 2012 15:37, Peter H. Meadows
wrote:
> Just out of curiosity.. How does the cutting edge of LISP compare to
> what we have in Pharo at the moment? I've read somewhere that
> smalltalk has the best refactoring/debugging tools. Would you agree
> with that? Are there object centric lisp
Hi Marcus,
I figured it must be the complexity of fixing the debugger that's keeping it
in the broken state that it is for this long. Mainly I wanted to get a sense
of how important is fixing this relative to the other things that need
fixing. It would seem to me that fixing the tool that you use
On Dec 11, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Peter H. Meadows
wrote:
> Just out of curiosity.. How does the cutting edge of LISP compare to
> what we have in Pharo at the moment? I've read somewhere that
> smalltalk has the best refactoring/debugging tools. Would you agree
> with that? Are there object centric
On 11 December 2012 09:32, Marcus Denker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The problem right now is that the debugger infrastructure is far more
> complicated than
> it should be, making is hard to change, fix and improve it.
>
some things are inherently complex. of course, proper (re)factoring helps..
but not mu
Just out of curiosity.. How does the cutting edge of LISP compare to
what we have in Pharo at the moment? I've read somewhere that
smalltalk has the best refactoring/debugging tools. Would you agree
with that? Are there object centric lisp debuggers? If someone asked
you 'why are you working on a s
Hi,
Yes, we should improve the debugger…
There are some nice things happening around the debugger
-> In Berne, Andrei made a DebuggerModel and a Glamour UI for it.
In the current Debugger, Model and View
are completely mixed (and the implementation is kind of old
No, old timers are equally upset by false/wrong visual feedback,
especially when they remember this used to work 25 years ago ;)
Nicolas
2012/12/9 adrians :
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Smalltalk newbie and I would like to help fix some simpler issues. For
> example, I've recently logged some issues surroundi
Hi,
I'm a Smalltalk newbie and I would like to help fix some simpler issues. For
example, I've recently logged some issues surrounding smart character use. I
set a breakpoint in NECController>>#smartCharacterWithEvent: and proceeded
to debug.
Now, I understand that for the old-timers stepping thr
25 matches
Mail list logo
