On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8 May 2015 at 19:31, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm....@gmail.com> >>> wrote >>>> >>>> >>>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>>> to move the window (it was >>>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>>> >>>> If we do >>>> [ | m | >>>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>>> m position: 0@0. >>>> m openInWorld . >>>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>>> ] value >>>> we see nothing. >>>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >>>> way Morphic world runs >>>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound >>>> nice to me too. >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>>> process ? >>>> >>> >>> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >>> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >>> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >>> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >>> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >>> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >>> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >>> >>> >> ahh yes. Maybe we're not ready to be that adventurous yet. >> cheers -ben >> >> > Unlike other software environments, smalltalk(s) allow you to change > virtually anything in the system. And i found this to be really great > thing.. and was happy until the moment i realized that the real thing, that > prevents changes is not the software but people who opposing the changes :) > Nonsense. Changes are not the same as breakages. I've just changed the entire VM and object representation. I implemented a JIT and then followed up with a faster one, and Clément and I are following up with an even faster one. But I didn't break things; I made them better. SOmeone who reimplements the transcript so that - it doesn't have all the stream messages any more, and hence isn't a stream as it was always, - it doesn't update has not made changes; they have broken things. And in a shared space we rightly get to complain when that happens. -- best, Eliot
