On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Jorge Ressia wrote:
Hi guys,
I am completely for inventing something new.
However, I do not think this is the right model for doing so.
In a sense we are getting static, we put some tools in the image and
expect people to use them.
I think that this is
On Aug 30, 2011, at 1:58 AM, Douglas Brebner wrote:
On 29/08/2011 21:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So may be you do not like Ring and this is ok.
Now I want an abstraction so that we can build a remote browser by plugging
simply rTalk + nautilus + ring.
With the current state of the system
On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
Lukas,
On 29 Aug 2011, at 19:53, Lukas Renggli wrote:
I disagree; I would like a small and stable Pharo in which crazy ideas
can be realized. For that I don't need fancy abstractions, but a
minimal, simple and absolutely stable
Hi guys,
I am completely for inventing something new.
However, I do not think this is the right model for doing so.
In a sense we are getting static, we put some tools in the image and
expect people to use them.
I think that this is going to be contra productive.
I believe that a much
On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
No, i wouldn't say so.
Most fixes and improvements are still about cleaning things out and fixing
bugs.
But not about new
On 29.08.2011 14:32, Lukas Renggli wrote:
On 29 August 2011 13:54, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.ber...@me.com wrote:
Since there is ob, I personally use Nautilus. It provides interesting
functionalities
such as grouping packages and the hierarchies view (such as in vw). Importing
things are
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 30 August 2011 02:58, Douglas Brebner squeakli...@fang.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 29/08/2011 21:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So may be you do not like Ring and this is ok.
Now I want an abstraction so that we can build a remote browser by
plugging
Levente Uzonyi-2 wrote:
IMHO it doesn't matter if it's crap or not. What you should consider is:
- how widely is the API used?
While this is practical and a great way to prioritize, I ultimately want a
system that is clean and beautiful down as close to the metal as possible.
In the past,
On Aug 30, 2011, at 1:58 AM, Douglas Brebner wrote:
If I may make a metaphor, it sounds like rebuilding a house from the
foundations on up while you're living in it. Things are bound to get
unpleasant while it's happening, but it's still worth it in the end. :)
Things get very complicated if
Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
I ultimately want a system that is clean and beautiful down
as close to the metal as possible.
...
once the necessary pain is done, I think many will step up and
produce amazing things, but not if the cleaning and restructuring stops.
+1000
We have to dig in the dirt in
2011/8/29 Stéphane Ducasse stephane.duca...@inria.fr:
On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
Hi Stef,
I just want to know if OB will be supported in Pharo = 1.4 even if
you don't maintain it, because I've spent energy and time learning the
framework, and I have written
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011, Lukas Renggli wrote:
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4 is supposed to have its own much better browser
framework.
What are the advantages compared to OB?
Levente
On 28 August 2011 11:59, Sean P. DeNigris
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4 is supposed to have its own much better browser
framework.
What are the advantages compared to OB?
I do not know. I will continue to use OB.
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch
Lukas Renggli wrote:
I do not know. I will continue to use OB.
Lukas, if you get a version working in 1.4, will you let me know/release it?
Sean
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Omnibrowser-in-1-4-tp3774180p3775979.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list
Since there is ob, I personally use Nautilus. It provides interesting
functionalities such as grouping packages and the hierarchies view (such as in
vw). Importing things are missing however, including refactorings.
Alexandre
Le 29 août 2011 à 07:28, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com
I do not know. I will continue to use OB.
Lukas, if you get a version working in 1.4, will you let me know/release it?
It took several man-weeks to get everything running in Pharo 1.3 and
there are still quite a few of issues left. Next on my list is to
stabilize everything and to get some
On 29 August 2011 13:54, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.ber...@me.com wrote:
Since there is ob, I personally use Nautilus. It provides interesting
functionalities
such as grouping packages and the hierarchies view (such as in vw). Importing
things are missing however, including refactorings.
Personally I wonder what the goal of Nautilus is?
Dont know either - but according to the SqS page
http://squeaksource.com/Nautilus/
it a new browser based on RPackage and Announcements
with fancy goodies like groups and multi-selections, ...
and it will be based on Ring.
IMHO fixed lists, a
+1
On 29.08.2011, at 14:51, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
Yes, there were times when other IDE's got their ideas from
Smalltalk and I think now we should look at some ideas from
mainstream IDE's.
+1
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Max Leske maxle...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On 29.08.2011, at 14:51, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
Yes, there were times when other IDE's got their ideas from
Smalltalk and I think now we should look at some ideas from
mainstream IDE's.
--
Jorge Ressia
On Aug 29, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
I do not know. I will continue to use OB.
Lukas, if you get a version working in 1.4, will you let me know/release it?
It took several man-weeks to get everything running in Pharo 1.3 and
there are still quite a few of issues left. Next
Since there is ob, I personally use Nautilus. It provides interesting
functionalities
such as grouping packages and the hierarchies view (such as in vw). Importing
things are missing however, including refactorings.
Personally I wonder what the goal of Nautilus is?
Nautilus looks to
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Torsten Bergmann asta...@gmx.de wrote:
The only thing I miss in these Java browsers is method categorization
and I still hate scrolling in long *.java files ;)
press CTRL+o in Eclipse to get a list of methods of the current class,
CTRL+o again to also get the
+ 1000
now who has time.
So nautilus is our attempt to make sure that we can still have a browser and
remove
string holder out of the image.
Now the only person I see being real and making progress on the IDE front is
doru with glamour.
Now Nautilus is not in competition with OB or Glamour.
Nautilus looks to me like yet another Smalltalk-80 browser that works
exactly the same as all previous Smalltalk browsers in the last 32
years (including OB). IMHO fixed lists, a text field and ugly buttons
do not cut it anymore. Did any Smalltalker ever work with XCode,
Eclipse,
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Nautilus looks to me like yet another Smalltalk-80 browser that works
exactly the same as all previous Smalltalk browsers in the last 32
years (including OB). IMHO fixed lists, a text field and ugly buttons
do not cut it anymore. Did any
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Lukas Renggli reng...@gmail.com wrote:
Or did I misunderstand something
about cohesion and coupling? :-)
you certainly got a bad teacher ;-)
--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Nautilus looks to me like yet another Smalltalk-80 browser that works
exactly the same as all previous Smalltalk browsers in the last 32
years (including OB). IMHO fixed lists, a text field and ugly buttons
do not cut it anymore. Did any
No more for me.
Introducing more code into Pharo that depends on more parts of Pharo
(RPackage, Announcement, Pragma, Ring, RB, Shout, ...) doesn't make it
easier to maintain and change Pharo. Or did I misunderstand something
about cohesion and coupling? :-)
With that philosophy, we can
On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
No more for me.
Introducing more code into Pharo that depends on more parts of Pharo
(RPackage, Announcement, Pragma, Ring, RB, Shout, ...) doesn't make it
easier to maintain and change Pharo. Or did I misunderstand something
about
Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Does anyone have OB working in 1.4?
Until we get things sorted out, I got OmniBrowser to load with only one
small change, tested a change method name refactoring, and 1361 out of 1365
tests pass.
1. ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser project bleedingEdge load: 'Dev'.
2.
No more for me.
Introducing more code into Pharo that depends on more parts of Pharo
(RPackage, Announcement, Pragma, Ring, RB, Shout, ...) doesn't make it
easier to maintain and change Pharo. Or did I misunderstand something
about cohesion and coupling? :-)
With that philosophy, we can
On Aug 29, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
Do you think the Pharo we have is good enough to have a future?
No, there is a lot to be improved. I think the future of Pharo is
Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
p.s. guys, please start another thread. Many people may find this
interesting and it has nothing to do with the OP.
Or not.
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Omnibrowser-in-1-4-tp3774180p3777074.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
Do you think the Pharo we have is good enough to have a future?
No, there is a lot to be improved. I think the future of Pharo is what
can be built on top, not what can be integrated
On Aug 29, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
Do you think the Pharo we have is good enough to have a future?
No, there is a lot to be improved. I think the future of Pharo is
On 29 August 2011 19:47, Lukas Renggli reng...@gmail.com wrote:
No more for me.
Introducing more code into Pharo that depends on more parts of Pharo
(RPackage, Announcement, Pragma, Ring, RB, Shout, ...) doesn't make it
easier to maintain and change Pharo. Or did I misunderstand something
Look at Scanner reference to get a feel! I do not call that simple, stable at
all.
Stef
No more for me.
Introducing more code into Pharo that depends on more parts of Pharo
(RPackage, Announcement, Pragma, Ring, RB, Shout, ...) doesn't make it
easier to maintain and change Pharo. Or
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
No, i wouldn't say so.
Most fixes and improvements are still about cleaning things out and fixing
bugs.
But not about new features.
Yes, you are right. In fact Pharo 1.4 is roughly 1
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
Do you think the Pharo we have is good enough to have a future?
No, there is a lot to be improved. I think the future of Pharo is what
can be built on top, not what can be integrated
On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:37 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Is the current system simple and minimal?
No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release.
No, i wouldn't say so.
Most fixes and improvements are still about cleaning things out and fixing
bugs.
But not about new
Zinc is an excellent example, because it is fully backward compatible.
I don't see that with RPackage, SystemAnnouncements, Ring, Shout
(before Alan fixed it), with the proposed RB changes, ...
I do not understand how SystemAnnouncements could be fully backward compatible,
then and this is
Lukas,
On 29 Aug 2011, at 19:53, Lukas Renggli wrote:
I disagree; I would like a small and stable Pharo in which crazy ideas
can be realized. For that I don't need fancy abstractions, but a
minimal, simple and absolutely stable system in which I can load and
do whatever I want. Maybe this is
Hi guys,
I am completely for inventing something new.
However, I do not think this is the right model for doing so.
In a sense we are getting static, we put some tools in the image and
expect people to use them.
I think that this is going to be contra productive.
I believe that a much better
Hi Stef,
I just want to know if OB will be supported in Pharo = 1.4 even if
you don't maintain it, because I've spent energy and time learning the
framework, and I have written one developer guide for OB and I have
planned at least 5 more browsers.
2011/8/28 Stéphane Ducasse
On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
Hi Stef,
I just want to know if OB will be supported in Pharo = 1.4 even if
you don't maintain it, because I've spent energy and time learning the
framework, and I have written one developer guide for OB and I have
planned at
On 29/08/2011 21:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So may be you do not like Ring and this is ok.
Now I want an abstraction so that we can build a remote browser by plugging
simply rTalk + nautilus + ring.
With the current state of the system this was simply impossible.
I want to be able to browse
On 30 August 2011 02:58, Douglas Brebner squeakli...@fang.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 29/08/2011 21:41, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So may be you do not like Ring and this is ok.
Now I want an abstraction so that we can build a remote browser by
plugging simply rTalk + nautilus + ring.
With the
Does anyone have OB working in 1.4?
Thanks.
Sean
(On an extended vacation in Edinburgh for most of the week thanks to
hurricane Irene)
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Omnibrowser-in-1-4-tp3774180p3774180.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at
Oh forgot to mention, (Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser) project
latestVersion load from MetacelloRepository seemed maybe old, with
references to Preferences, and errors after loading.
S
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Omnibrowser-in-1-4-tp3774180p3774181.html
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4 is supposed to have its own much better browser
framework.
On 28 August 2011 11:59, Sean P. DeNigris s...@clipperadams.com wrote:
Oh forgot to mention, (Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfOmniBrowser) project
Lukas Renggli wrote:
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4 is supposed to have its own much better browser
framework.
Until that happens, all development in Pharo 1.4 will be done without a
refactoring browser?
--
View this message in context:
On Aug 28, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Lukas Renggli wrote:
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4 is supposed to have its own much better browser
framework.
People can use OB if they want. Since we never maintained OB (only
Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
So you see we are improving the core image.
Okay, I got it. Thank you Lukas and Steph. Sounds good.
Sean
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Omnibrowser-in-1-4-tp3774180p3774411.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at
2011/8/28 Lukas Renggli reng...@gmail.com:
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4 is supposed to have its own much better browser
framework.
Which framework?
I think Lukas means Nautilus.
[1] http://www.squeaksource.com/Nautilus.html
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Hernán Morales Durand
hernan.mora...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/28 Lukas Renggli reng...@gmail.com:
There are currently no plans to make OB work in upcoming Pharo
versions; Pharo 1.4
56 matches
Mail list logo
