it depends, the power that pharo offers is just massive on this department.
For example you say you dont like the idea of a global startup script, thats fine because you can have startup scripts per image, they go to the same folder as your image. If you really have a super complex setup it would make sense to make a git repo with just your make file and startup scripts. The makefile can be parameterized with command line arguments to perform diffirent installs then its a just a matter of copying the correct startup script to the folder with the appropriate image which of course is something the makefile can handle too. Mariano has a great post on the subject of startup scripts which what I used to make my own https://marianopeck.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/startuploader-running-startup-scripts-in-pharo/ By interactive mode again , I assume here you mean the GUI. Again it depends what you want to do, a pharo install comes with 2 executables pharo-ui which is the well known gui front and pharo which has no gui. In both cases you have debug abilities though I presume it would be easier to do this from inside a GUI. pharo and pharo-ui has an eval argument that allow you to execute any kind of code and there is also a save argument to save the image with your new code. If you prefer GUI then you dont even need to pass metacello arguments, just make a configuration installing all your dependencies and put it in the STHUB metarepo corresponing to the version of pharo you use, it will be available from Package browser and you will be able to install all your dependencies with a single click every time you download a new install of pharo. Or just install a tool that you can use from playground to install the dependencies with a simple message. Or make a spec GUI or morphic GUI and do all that from the comfort of your mouse. OR....... the options are just endless. Another thing to remember here is that a baseline does not have to have one setup, you can have multiple setups installing things under diffirent conditions. Baseline also are aware of smalltalk implementation (squeak/ pharo) and pharo versions. That means diffirent installs under diffirent conditions and some deep fine tuning. Baseline also allow for actions before the install after the install, so even if you want to do some clean up you can do this also from the comfort of baseline. Lastly but not least metacello is fully aware of git branches that gives you even more possibilities since a branch even in the same repo can be a completely new repo that gives you even more crazy options , since you can have diffirent Baseline under diffirent branch and of course the branch can contain its own code and assets (images, sounds , binary files, anything). It really comes down to the way you like to work, pharo can do it, you choose how and what. On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goub...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kilon, > > 2016-10-22 9:52 GMT+02:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > > Actually we dont, I am using the terminal to get and build my own images. > Curl + use of startup scripts are more than enough. Simply , easy and > straightforward. Pharo offers a super easy way to export any method as a > command line argument. So there is literally no excuse. > > Pharo already offers a metacello argument so you are set to go on > installing anything you want through the terminal in your image and also > offers evaluation of smalltalk code as argument. But I prefer startup > scripts, I have made a startup script that can detect the name of images > and install different packages to them, you can do insane things with > startup scripts actually. > > > Yes, that looks pretty cool. > > I still stick with Makefiles and command line Pharo to build images, in > part because when I run different projects, I can store inside the git of > the project (i.e. version them) both the squeleton of the build environment > and all the build instructions, instead of having to put a project-specific > startup script inside a settings directory shared among all projects. > > But I certainly see the value of running the startup scripts in the image > in interactive mode, where it becomes a lot easier to debug them. > > While running them on the command line is convenient too (make build, > switch to email, reply, come back when the build is done). > > > > you can find my build setup here > > https://github.com/kilon/makePharo > > > I'll keep it in mind, thanks! > > Thierry > > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 10:06 AM p...@highoctane.be <p...@highoctane.be> > wrote: > > We need some easy to use gem-style installer on the command line. > > Pharo is perfectly usable for any kind of project provided energy is > poured in. > > Things are in flux, yes, and it is frustrating not to have it all perfect. > So what? If we weren't interested in wild things why would we be here after > all? > > Think long term: 10 years from now, improvements will have been massively > compounding (not to mention 20). > > I hope to have a huge win with Pharo business wise and be able to fund a > serious team. That's my dream. I am actively working on it. > > Pharo can stay relevant for that long I believe. I love the way it helps > me think. I love the fact that I can look everywhere I want. I love the > fact that this community has balls. I love to show the magic we can do with > it. If it all goes nowhere, I do not even mind as I have a damn awesome > time around here. > > Now, I also want a working text model. This feels like a kind of > psychological roadblock. Like a self sabotage. Let's put that dead rat on > the table and make something about it. > > I like Doru's Pillar editor. I guess the underlying engine will evolve to > make it faster. Great. Grafoscopio will also be a driving force there I > believe. Pharo can be superspeedy, no core problem. > > Sorry for the rant. > > Now back to promoting Pharo in front of Android/Angular/Java people this > afternoon at http://devfest.be (note that this is the 3rd time I show > Pharo/Amber there - they could kick me out but do not). > > /Phil > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Actually you are wrong, its not hard to use C libraries from Pharo. UFFI > is not a restart, its a continuation of Nativeboost , they are very > similar. > > Pharo FFI, whether its the old FFI, Alien, Nativeboost or UFFI, is more or > less the same. In the end an FFI is defined by C syntax , Pharo UFFI > borrows the easy of use of Nativeboost that allows you to take c functions > definition and use them as they are with a simple copy paste. > > Pharo is also is based on very good integration with C , like Squeak can > output its code as C code via the Slang interface though it comes with some > limitations. > > The availability of C libraries to Pharo is a reflection of the community > size. Comparing with Ruby is very unfair , as Ruby is vastly more popular > (think in thousand times) , hence why you see so many C libraries wrapped > for Ruby. Of course python kicks Ruby ass kung fu style with its vastly > superior array of C wrapped libraries. > > The moment you decide to use an unpopular language as Pharo then if you > are not prepared to get your hands dirty and you expect things on your > plate like Ruby or Python , then its time to go back to Ruby or Python. > > Pharo is not in flux , its evolving, every new tool or library you see is > an evolution of something else. > > We dont need Gems for Pharo, Dale has done a great job with Metacello, its > easy to make a pharo project in git/github and have it install all pharo > code and built C libraries wrapped for Pharo. Just because people are not > in the habit of doing this does not mean its not super easy to be done. For > example AFAIK my project ChronosManager was one of the first project to > install from Catalog Browser not only its Pharo code but also , pngs and > audio files. I made even an autoupdate feature that pings my github repo to > see if there are any new commits and then if so it alerts the user and give > him the ability to download the update with a single click. All that is > metacello. > > Metacello is probably one of the best if not the best package distribution > systems out there. Definetly vastly better than Python's PyPi and Node'js > NPM . I cannot praise it enough and I have no problem criticising Pharo > when I must. Dale has done an amazing job, period. > > On the GUI front on the other hand, its messy, no doubt about it. Morphic > is huge, ugly and almost not maintained. Bloc is probably going to be the > next step. > > I think the issue here is that we dont have Arduino or Raspberry Pi guys. > Same story for my field, 3d graphics. There is a OpenGL wrapper and the > Wodden graphics engine and nothing else. I and the author of Woden are the > only people here interested into 3d graphics, he makes Woden, I have made a > bridge with Blender Python , for using Pharo to make Blender addons and I > am now in the process of making a bridge with Unreal Engine. > > I dont see why you would have an issue using Pharo from Raspberry Pi, we > already support SDL and you can even run Pharo with no GUI from the > terminal and export any Pharo method as a command line argument. My Python > socket bridge also showed me that is dead easy to connect Pharo with other > programming languages, in my case python , with just a few hundred lines of > code. Typical IPC. > > So there are no excuses for not using Pharo, from there on, it depends on > your specific needs and wants and taste. > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 7:05 PM Todd Blanchard <tblanch...@mac.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2016, at 07:30, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: > > The current (!) complaint is rather based on the fact that everything > regarding the graphics backend, widget and tools appears sometimes as an > indefinite loop of reinventing stuff and improving and never get the job > done. Did I mention 64bit, UFFI,… I'm glad all these topics are worked one > and I see a bright future if half of them are done. But then sometimes it > looks rather dark and the light at the end of the tunnel just went off :) > > > I feel you. > > I very much want to use Pharo to build devices from things like Raspberry > Pi's, iPhones, and Androids. I need access to native libraries. You can't > rewrite everything ever in Smalltalk and I don't really see a good reason > to. > > I've taken about ten years off from doing Smalltalk and I'm trying to get > back into it. My interest is piqued because I want to build nice custom > systems using the nifty new cheap goodies like Arduinos and RPis and it > seems tossing together a full screen Pharo image would be a great way to > build these appliances. In that time the story for how to call out to > native code has changed...twice. Everything is broken or in flux again. > > To me, it doesn't feel like there's any more platform to build apps on > than there was ten years ago and everything is still "just around the > corner". Pharo seem to be an experiment in building next generation > programming tools using deprecated last generation programming tools. I > don't see a lot of useful programs being built atop it - largely because > the base is constantly shifting about. > > It is disheartening that the Ruby guys can crank out gems with native > libraries that compile and work on every platform and pharo is still > constantly half broken with loadable native code "doable" but only with > great effort. > > I looked and Moz2D doesn't seem to have a light weight build for Raspberry > Pi. Is hitching Pharo to a heavy weight graphics library as a core > requirement a good idea? > > I'm starting to think maybe we need something like Gems for Pharo - > dynamically loadable libraries and resources - compiled at install if > necessary. > > >
