28 Jun
2014
28 Jun
'14
9:25 a.m.
On 28/6/14 08:19, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Stef,
Certainly. If you want to ship ready-made tools that hide the Pharo
environment, then the whole Pharo IDE is out.
This is why I think that we should
have
MooseInfrastructure
MooseIDE
Cheers,
Doru
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:13 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr
<mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
It depends if Moose is an infrastructure to build tools or an ide
to do analyses.
For the second one I can understand that GT is part of the "Moose"
now we when we sell tools to clients
GT is simply out!
So we will maintain a Moose infrastructure configuration because
this is too important for us.
Stef
On 27/6/14 14:56, Diego Lont wrote:
Hi all,
Just some pro's and con's of the GT Toolkit from a commercial
point of view:
_Pro:_
The toolkit is way ahead of the other tools.
The toolkit is well maintained. Bugs are fixed pretty quick, once
located.
The tools can be expanded quite easily. This is a key advantage,
and now causes more people to work on the tools. And we need more
people working on the development environment ...
_Con:_
GTDebugger has been unstable (had unstable features) a few time
the last couple of months. One can notice there is development
going on here.
The tools, especially the debugger, needs a bit getting used to.
To be honest, this is not much different from Pharo itself. One
can notice there is development going on, and from time to time
something critical breaks. Since the debugger, inspector and
system browser are such a key tools, one probably notices this a
bit faster when it concerns one of these tools.
But I consider that development is going on in those key areas a
good thing. I must admit that I reverted to pharo for the moment,
but I plan on going back once the moose tools are a bit more
stable again.
So yes, I agree with Doru that these tools should be a default
part of moose. This is the only way to get enough users for these
tools. And I do not want to get stuck with the old things, that
maybe work reliable, but do not improve any more.
Diego
On 26 Jun 2014, at 16:58, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com
<mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev I am not convinced you read the whole mail
:). So, just to make
sure, here is the snippet for you again (which is how things are
done in plain Pharo code - no Moose magic involved):
EyeInspector registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
SpecDebugger registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
Workspace registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
Doru
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:54 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr
<mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
So you mean that we cannot have our old tools?
Ok now I know what I have to do.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
At this moment, GT primarily means:
- Playground
- Inspector
- Debugger
(Metaceller was never a subject to debate, so I will not
address it here)
The Coder will likely follow but first in a different
format than one expects. Namely, it will appear first as a
code editor inside the inspector.
GT is neither a whim, nor is it experimental. GT is a long
term project. For example, the inspector was incubated for
more than 4 years, and it is time to work with it and
evolve it based on real-life experience. It is true that
sometimes it is still moving but that is because it is
alive :). Yet, the functionality is there, and if there are
issues they should be treated as such: report them and they
will be fixed.
Now, the main reason why GT is not optional for the main
Moose distribution is that, as I explained one year ago at
the MooseDay, Moose will provide the IDE. First, we need a
new IDE in Pharo and I think we have cool set of concepts
and the Moose engines are perfect for it. Second, when
analyzing data from XML structures, plain files, DB, or
even Pharo objects, the Inspector is cornerstone. And so is
the Playground. As for the Debugger, I will remind you that
it comes with working dedicated debuggers for PetitParser,
Glamour, and Announcements. These alone make it worth the
effort when developing Moose-based solutions.
Not to mention that we are building something that is
ridiculously small for the power it harnesses. We should
not stop this because we find a couple of bugs along the way.
For all these reasons, GT is here to stay.
Cheers,
Doru
p.s. Btw, the development of GT is not reserved to a closed
circle. We would like to invite anyone interested in
participating in the development of GT.
p.p.s. Of course, because this system is properly
engineered, it can be safely replaced by the default tools:
EyeInspector registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
SpecDebugger registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
Workspace registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/>
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch <mailto:Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev