On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 11:18 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le 9/5/15 16:24, Eliot Miranda a écrit : > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 5:37 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi guys >> >> Eliot I do not understand why you are reacting like that. Our goal is not >> to make the live of people worse. All the efforts we >> do in Pharo is to get better. >> > > Reacting like what? > > > Why do you mentioned doctrine? I was sad about this remark. >
Because I saw Igor talking about internal issues, the internal architecture of the transcript, never having a stream crossed with a UI element, which were nothing to do with the point of the utility of the transcript and everything to do with a doctrinal attitude to software artifacts. I don't want to spend time defending hybrids, but I don;t see anything wrong in them; in real life hybrids are often strong and useful. So Igor's discussion strucl me as doctrinal and not addressing the pont, which is the utility of the transcript. > Our goal is to produce a good environment with excellent tools. Now you > believe that I changed this code because I do not know what. > I don't know who changed the transcript, nor do I care. In this discussion I only care that Pharo has a useful transcript, so that Clément and others working on the VM can be productive in Pharo. > What I would have prefered is that you take the same attitude than me: > consider that your case made sense. Remember that > I raised the issue because I discussed with clement and I wanted to > understand why my changes were not good. > > But you tell me that I follow a doctrine. Well. Now I should have continue > to believe that I'm right and I would feel much better. > Now the truth should be also in the eye of the beholder. > You are reading things into what I said. I didn't accuse you of following a doctrine. I specifically found Igor's comments on hybrids doctrinal. Perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to my criticising the transcript. That's human, but I hope that you can put your emotional reaction aside and instead focus on the important technical issue here. > You think that transcript should the fast and you do not care about > thread safety. > That's not true. I clarified my comments on thread-safety in a previous message. Thread-safety, so that the transcript does not lock-up, is IMO a really good thing. I don't think that ensuring a good interleaving is important however. > When I started to work on concurrency, should I write in the book that > the students should not use the transcript because > it does not handle concurrent updates. It does not look sexy for > arrogant people like us that claim having excellent tools? > > I always thought that the transcript' goal was to display correctly > results of program execution not just sequential execution. > And with two threads the old transcript clearly does not do it. So to > me the "fast" transcript is broken. And up to today I > did not see any class comments mentionning that the transcript first > goal was to be fast displaying something. > Arranging that two updaters synchronise is not necessarily the function of the target data structure, but instead could be left to the clients to agree upon. For example, one could wrap the transcript with some object that provided more correct interleavings (that Igor might prefer because it is better decoupled). But the fundamental issue of thread-safety with the transcript is IMO that it not break when accessed from different threads. But the bottom line is that a technical community must strive to have productive discussions of technical issues and individuals in the community should strive to not take things personally and focus on technical issues. If we descend into ad hominem attacks and emotional reactions we will fail as a technical enterprise, no? > Stef > > > > I am trying to establish that the transcript is broken and needs > fixing. Do you agree or not? If you don't agree then fine, Clément will > continue to develop the VM in Squeak, and I'll always be confused about the > Pharo community's ability to discuss technical issues. > > If you do agree, then why not plan to fix it? > > If instead you don't want to discuss the technical issue and instead see > this as some kind of emotional attack then I'm sorry but that's completely > dysfuncitonal. People make mistakes. Communities bake bad decisions. > These things happen. But mature people and functional communities can > recognize (you notice I didn't say admit, no one wants to ridicule people > for their mistakes, I make serious mistakes continuously) their mistakes > and rectify them. > > I am /not/ attacking the community, I am /not/ saying that Pharo is not > trying to improve things, I am /not/ saying the old transcript was the most > perfect piece of software ever, I am saying that the current behaviour and > api of the transcript is *broken*. It needs to be a) compatible with > WriteStream, and b) needs to display its output as soon as it is sent > flush. Do you disagree? > > > >> I changed the transcript because when I started to work on concurrent >> programming chapters then the transcript was simply useless. >> Now I would like to know how we can improve the solution and this is why >> I sent this mail. >> But apparently I should not have. :( >> >> I did not send it to receive your kind of emails. I'm convinced you can >> do better. I do not know what you mean about doctrine. >> Pharo objectives is to bring money in Smalltalk and to build better tools >> and infrastructure. >> >> Stef >> >> >> > > > -- > best, > Eliot > > -- best, Eliot
