> On 13 Apr 2018, at 14:23, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > > Unfortunately there probably isn't one list. > Its hard to unlearn what is accumulated > and easy to take for granted what we know is obvious to everyone. > Maybe we need a "Glossary" at > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/tree/master/wiki > <https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/tree/master/wiki> > where newcomers can add items for others to fill in.
this is part a debate Stef and I have since years. I think we need to put generic names to our tools: - System browser - Source Version Control - etc. while Stef supports fantasy names: - Calypso - Iceberg - etc. you know who won this debate ;) but at least I would like to add an option for special menu to show what is suck tool. cheers, Esteban > > cheers -ben > > On 13 April 2018 at 20:05, Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com > <mailto:rao...@gmail.com>> wrote: > There are a lot of subsystems in Pharo, and being a bear of > very little brain, I have a hard time relating Zinc, Calypso, > &c &c to, well, whatever they are. I presume there is > somewhere a list of topic/name/PFX triples for guidance. > Can some kind soul tell me where it is? > > > On 13 April 2018 at 23:01, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr > <mailto:marcus.den...@inria.fr>> wrote: > > > > On 13 Apr 2018, at 12:40, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu > > <mailto:s...@stfx.eu>> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 13 Apr 2018, at 12:19, Joe Shirk <j.b.sh...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:j.b.sh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> I've been a lurk-fan for a long time but this brings up something that > >> distressed me. Richard Eng, Smalltalk Renaissance hero loves to say > >> Smalltalk's grammar/syntax fits on a postcard. > >> > >> But the vocabulary doesn't. There is nothing English-like about the always > >> expanding bewildering library namespaces. > >> > > The package names that just use the “project name” can be problematic… too > many words. e.g. “Hiedra”? No idea. (there are ideas of how to improve, I > will not list them here as this should > not turn into discussion about this issue). > > The way we present packages (and their granularity) is not “right”. > Namespaces are a problem in addition… > > So yes: we have a lot of thing to improve! > . > >> GT what? Oh a newbie might eventually figure out it means Glamorous > >> Toolkit. These are meaningless brands. In this drive to come up with > >> creative names for "just objects" that explain nothing at all, Smalltalk > >> is becoming like Java or PHP hell. > >> Just look at those examples through the eyes of a novice. The purity is > >> nowhere to be found. > >> :( > > > > You are right, but in 'the real world' it is no longer possible to reserve > > the nice, simple names for just one variant. The prefixes are a poor mans > > namespace mechanism. You have to read over them. > > > > Inspector, EyeInspector, GTInspector, ... > > > > I rather have cool alternatives and the development of new ideas than 'one > > ring to rule them all' or no/slow progress. Remember that we develop in a > > live system, changing things while testing them, this is often hard. > > Alternative subsystems help a lot. > > It should be clear that what we have is what we managed to do, not what we > dreamed about… I, too, would like to have this clean, nice, small, amazing > system… but it is not always easy. > > There is a lot we can (and will!) improve! > > Marcus > > > >
