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

Reply via email to