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 model would be a dynamic one in which people can load the tools that make them more productive. Moreover, this model will force us, developers, to better target our tools. Make clear which are their objectives, showing their benefits, improve their design for understandability and extension and thus getting feedback and interested people. At the end better tools will emerge. In a word, better products, with a "natural selection" process. HTH, Jorge On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> 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 features. > > Yes, you are right. In fact Pharo 1.4 is roughly 1 MB smaller than Pharo 1.3. > >> Even if you consider Zinc as a movement towards "getting bigger", >> consider an alternative: >> having library which follows standards, or keep using hacks which were >> not complete and useful only >> for most simple cases. > > 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 am also against growing system unless it is necessarily. >> In 1.3. i added a new 'non-interactive' mode and non-interactive ui >> manager. And this was necessarily, because we need a way >> to deal with "hanging images" in headless mode. >> Now we can run images on jenkins, knowing that it will never enter >> 'click ok to proceed' state. > > Yes, this is cool. > >>>> 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 and forced upon >>> everybody. >> >> Lukas, there is nobody forcing anyone. >> How we (or anyone else) can force people to use Pharo? > > Right, but you can easily force people not to follow. I don't > understand why all the people that still use Pharo 1.0 or 1.1 don't > speak up? > >> A new and 'unproven' tools are 'forced' into images mainly to collect >> feedback. >> And i think it is good strategy, because most people *including me* >> are too busy/lazy to go & download and install new stuff and try it >> out. > > Don't we have all these automatic builds with all these tools > pre-loaded? There could be a list of links to these builds on the > website and like/+1/report buttons. That would likely yield some > discussions and give some time to investigate ... > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > > -- Jorge Ressia www.jorgeressia.com
