Feenk re-imagining aside (which I will pursue with them), it seems like our 
current tools can support this better right?

I see two issues:

1) if we encounter a not present class can we fix the debugger to offer 
something like we do for a missing method so it’s less obtuse? 

2) when coding - if you want reference a missing class, why don’t we let you? 
TonelReader seems to do it, why can’t the editor? (This probably applies to 
variables as well - show them broken, let me fix it when I choose. The iVar 
case is a little rarer - although I hate the way we prompt fix, prompt fix 
instead of doing it in one go - it’s very old fashioned)

Does anyone have tips on solving these? It spoils the exercism experience that 
I thought we could convey, so I’d like to at least fix #1 in 6.1 if I can.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 01:44, Francisco Ortiz Peñaloza <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> +1  
> 
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 at 09:02 Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi guys - I’ve been hammering on the exercism project to get pharo shining 
>> over there… its been a good side distraction (there is lots of energy in 
>> that community to) and its made me really push my use of Iceberg & git as 
>> well as learn some fo the newish file reference stuff (still getting good at 
>> that - but like the approach),
>> 
>> Anyway - I’ve got an Alpha working, and users can pull down a zero conf 
>> pharo image and eval a little script that will get them up and running 
>> (which is pretty slick).
>> 
>> So the story then goes - Exercism is trying to simulate TDD and help you 
>> learn a new language (aka Pharo or Go or Python etc). To this end, they’ve 
>> got an active community building up little test exercises with suites of 
>> tests that new users can run to help them learn the syntax/essence of the 
>> language track they’ve signed up to. You run the tests, develop your 
>> solution and then submit it to a community to get feedback and then progress.
>> 
>> Pretty standard - we can play in this pond too - and it turns out that Tonel 
>> actually makes it pretty easy to submit readable solutions that will fit on 
>> their website. YAY.
>> 
>> The trouble is - when you pull down a new exercise - I use the TonelReader 
>> to pull the code into your image - and I thought it would be cute to just 
>> pull in the TestCase so that users can simulate the full TDD cycle - where 
>> you can create things in the debugger… this is where it all began right?
>> 
>> So you hit a clanger when you do this - and in a way its a bit of a legacy 
>> thing we’ve carried around (and possibly should fix better). When Tonel 
>> reads in the TesCase, it normally will reference a class this isn’t there 
>> (I’ve deliberately left the solution out). It does the right thing and put a 
>> nil placeholder in the code so that it can read it in.
>> 
>> HOWEVER - when you run your test and hit that nil class placeholder we do a 
>> very bad job of dealing with this in the debugger. And if you think about it 
>> - we also do a bad job when typing in code too - we essentially insist that 
>> declare a class then and there - unlike a selector which can happily be late 
>> bound.
>> 
>> So back to my TDD example - user gets a debugger with a nil class error - 
>> the create button is actually not helpful for you as it only creates 
>> methods. So our “live in the debugger” mantra is a bit less obvious here. 
>> What you had to do is make a change to the source (like a space) so that you 
>> can reserve the method - which then causes you to get the “create class 
>> prompt”. So we have the ability - just don’t expose it very well - however 
>> now you have a missing method - but again its not so obvious that you have 
>> to resume your debugger (it hasn’t resumed when you created the class) - and 
>> then you will get another error for the missing method that the create 
>> button will now resolve.
>> 
>> This feels very clunky to me - and makes me feel like I’m mis-selling 
>> smalltalk where we have a bullet point about “Amazing for debugging…”.
>> 
>> This feels fixable though right? I’m wondering about thoughts though before 
>> jumping in…
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> p.s. - we’re building some exercises for exercism and getting that process 
>> streamlined so hopefully many more people can help - and maybe we can 
>> augment the great learning courses/videos/books that we already have.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Sent from the past

Reply via email to