Hi guys,

Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't
stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package
marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so
where is the problem?

I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration
path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a
guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible
with some automated procedure to migrate our code.

In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big
change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us
as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user
base behind.

Best regards
Janko

Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piše Stéphane Ducasse:
> Chris
> 
> Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee?
> We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can 
> use to make a living.
> May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at 
> the end of the day 
> we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as 
> researchers).
> 
> I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not 
> good. If you disagree then you may want to 
> spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here 
> this is the place where you should react and prove
> to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D
> 
> Now nobody force you to: 
>       - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this 
> kind of endless useless discussions) or 
>       phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system.
> 
>       - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy 
> world. So this is perfect. 
> 
> Did you read the Pharo motto? 
> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
> 
>> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go..  I
>> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or
>> intentional false-propaganda but...  confusion reigns here!  :)  This
>> example is bunk.
>>
>> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002
>> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's
>> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how
>> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory.
>> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is:
>>
>> "FileDirectory"
>> localFileName: aString
>>        | file |      
>>        super localFileName: aString.
>>        file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString.     
>>        file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ].
>>        self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime.
>>
>> "FileSystem"
>> localFileName: aString
>>        | file |      
>>        super localFileName: aString.
>>        file := aString asFileName.   
>>        file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ].
>>        self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime.
>>
>> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights
>> with FileSystem!  (not!)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Chris Muller-4 wrote
>>>> While someone in the Pharo
>>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an
>>>> incremental API change
>>>
>>> Can you still say that after reading
>>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?!
>>>
>>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw
>>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted
>>> on a great work of art.
>>>
>>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the
>>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked
>>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of
>>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic
>>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to
>>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even
>>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't
>>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went
>>> back to the standard tools.
>>>
>>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and
>>> makes these types of arguments moot:
>>> - Better for the better
>>> - Beauty to learn from
>>> - Not backward compatible
>>> - Clean, lean and fast
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Sean

-- 
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Reply via email to