On Nov 24, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Nicolas Anquetil <Nicolas.Anquetil(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote: Why is Fame (and Famix) statically typed? It always seemed strange to me in the Smalltalk context. Do we really use/need this property? (Because sometimes, it really sucks) nicolas -- Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR) Project-Team RMod _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

As I already said, traits are stateless and Fame is only about modelling data, so I am not sure what traits would mean in this context. But either we should have some way to "compose" new entities from multiple ancestors, or we should remove this static typing (or both), because currently it is very painful to model multiple programming languages jointly. The result is what Guillaume posted some weeks ago: models with MANY instance variables nil or empty lists Nicolas On 24/11/2016 11:16, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > We chose to have it statically typed because we are also generating the > meta-model for other languages. But, it is true that it is less ideal in > some edge cases. > > We can think about removing this constraint, but the generation part is a > relevant use case that we should take into account. That is why I believe > that having a model organized around Traits would be suitable. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Doru > > > On Nov 24, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Nicolas Anquetil <Nicolas.Anquetil(a)inria.fr&gt; >> wrote: >> >> >> Why is Fame (and Famix) statically typed? >> >> It always seemed strange to me in the Smalltalk context. >> >> Do we really use/need this property? >> >> (Because sometimes, it really sucks) >> >> nicolas >> >> >> -- >> Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR) >> Project-Team RMod >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > -- Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR) Project-Team RMod _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

On Nov 26, 2016, at 9:58 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: Hi What we will try to do with Pavel, alain, anne and me (probably nicolas) in contact with Peter starting january is the following Define another metametamodel (trying to use Pharo + Slot for relationships + invariant = Pharom) - this metameta should be able to have different syntaxes OpenPonk, Express, Pharo - This metameta should does not need types :) sorry I did not get at all the remark of guillaume And in particular there is a difference between a static type and a concrete type systems. Take Famix 3 -> Famix3NG and break it appart to get composable pieces and use Pharom to describe FamixNG We are open to discussions but to a certain extent. Then we will work on optimise for space. In addition we will do a call to collect all the points that should be improve in Moose. We will collect prioritze and tackle them Stef

On Nov 26, 2016, at 2:02 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: Hi doru > Hi, > > As I mentioned at ESUG, I am really happy to see this effort, and I will support it. Modeling is an important piece in Moose, and being more flexible at creating new models is a significant added value given that Moose. Please keep me in the loop. > > I am particularly interested in the object model of the meta-meta-model, and in the mapping to the Pharo classes that contain the implementation of the meta-model. I believe a Traits-based model would work well (I will try to list my ideas of how this could work later). > > Using Slots is definitely something we already should have done in Fame, and I think it will work very well at least on the implementation level of the meta-model. > > About syntaxes, I have less predilection for those, but I understand why they can be appealing. I believe that we should first favor Pharo, and only afterwards other DSLs. For example, if we insist of having the meta-model code separately, I believe that we should be able to produce the meta-description also through a fluent API (so, the fluent API is one of the syntaxes). Still, if we express the meta-model separately from the meta-model implementation, the question is remains about how we do the mapping. I kind of agree. Now I do not want to people feel that we still their ideas and that they get stuck with their syntaxes.

> About types, I also disagree with the comment from Guillaume :). One place where types can be relevant is when producing interfaces for editing objects, but I think that that does not have to be the main driver of the design of the new meta-meta-model. The only thing that I think is important when it comes to types is to allow us to reproduce the basic meta-model implementation in other languages that do rely on rigid static types. For example, right now, Fame generates the relations implementation using this information. Yes there is a difference between saying - the type of "to" of this relation is Container - the type of to of this relation is the class of the object that will be the to of the relation based on the instantiation of the relation. It is like anchor-type. you may want to say this variable is the same type as this one or the same type as whaeveter. and not hardcode the type once for all.

> In any case, I do not necessarily have a predefined solution in my head, but I do have requirements. And I would like to spend effort on this at least at the level of feedback and prototyping. Ok we do not have either a predefined solution. Now we do not want to focus on interexchange constraints more on empowering our infrastructure.

> > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Nov 26, 2016, at 9:58 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> What we will try to do with Pavel, alain, anne and me (probably nicolas) in contact with Peter starting january is the following >> >> Define another metametamodel (trying to use Pharo + Slot for relationships + invariant = Pharom) >> - this metameta should be able to have different syntaxes >> OpenPonk, Express, Pharo >> - This metameta should does not need types :) sorry I did not get at all the remark of guillaume >> And in particular there is a difference between a static type and a concrete type systems. >> >> >> Take Famix 3 -> Famix3NG and break it appart to get composable pieces >> and use Pharom to describe FamixNG >> >> We are open to discussions but to a certain extent. >> >> Then we will work on optimise for space. >> In addition we will do a call to collect all the points that should be improve in Moose. >> >> We will >> collect >> prioritze >> and tackle them >> >> >> Stef > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Yesterday is a fact. > Tomorrow is a possibility. > Today is a challenge." > > > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Nov 26, 2016, at 3:17 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 14:32:16 +0100, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > >> On Nov 26, 2016, at 2:02 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi doru >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I mentioned at ESUG, I am really happy to see this effort, and I will support it. Modeling is an important piece in Moose, and being more flexible at creating new models is a significant added value given that Moose. Please keep me in the loop. >>> >>> I am particularly interested in the object model of the meta-meta-model, and in the mapping to the Pharo classes that contain the implementation of the meta-model. I believe a Traits-based model would work well (I will try to list my ideas of how this could work later). >>> >>> Using Slots is definitely something we already should have done in Fame, and I think it will work very well at least on the implementation level of the meta-model. >>> >>> About syntaxes, I have less predilection for those, but I understand why they can be appealing. I believe that we should first favor Pharo, and only afterwards other DSLs. For example, if we insist of having the meta-model code separately, I believe that we should be able to produce the meta-description also through a fluent API (so, the fluent API is one of the syntaxes). Still, if we express the meta-model separately from the meta-model implementation, the question is remains about how we do the mapping. >> >> I kind of agree. Now I do not want to people feel that we still their ideas and that >> they get stuck with their syntaxes. > > I think I am missing a part of the picture. What do you mean by “stealing"? I mean that I would like a solution that openPonk and platypus can use and that we can share the same metameta and if they prefer their own syntax that they can use it. From a end-user perspective may be usig openPonk or express is nicer than pharo :)

>>> About types, I also disagree with the comment from Guillaume :). One place where types can be relevant is when producing interfaces for editing objects, but I think that that does not have to be the main driver of the design of the new meta-meta-model. The only thing that I think is important when it comes to types is to allow us to reproduce the basic meta-model implementation in other languages that do rely on rigid static types. For example, right now, Fame generates the relations implementation using this information. >> >> Yes there is a difference between saying >> >> - the type of "to" of this relation is Container >> >> - the type of to of this relation is the class of the object that will be the to of the relation >> based on the instantiation of the relation. >> It is like anchor-type. you may want to say >> this variable is the same type as this one or the same type as whaeveter. >> and not hardcode the type once for all. > > Exactly. For example, MultivalueLinks that model the bidirectional relationships in Fame work at the Pharo level and they do not care about type. The static information is actually only meaningful when we generate code. > > Perhaps one option would be to have some sort of optional types for the scenario in which someone would like to maintain these types. Or maybe we find another solution. Yes this is the point or deduce the Type because we rarely want abstract types. > >>> In any case, I do not necessarily have a predefined solution in my head, but I do have requirements. And I would like to spend effort on this at least at the level of feedback and prototyping. >> >> Ok we do not have either a predefined solution. >> Now we do not want to focus on interexchange constraints more on empowering our infrastructure. > > That makes sense. That is why I said that I am interested to spend effort :). > > > Cheers, > Doru > > > >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 26, 2016, at 9:58 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> What we will try to do with Pavel, alain, anne and me (probably nicolas) in contact with Peter starting january is the following >>>> >>>> Define another metametamodel (trying to use Pharo + Slot for relationships + invariant = Pharom) >>>> - this metameta should be able to have different syntaxes >>>> OpenPonk, Express, Pharo >>>> - This metameta should does not need types :) sorry I did not get at all the remark of guillaume >>>> And in particular there is a difference between a static type and a concrete type systems. >>>> >>>> >>>> Take Famix 3 -> Famix3NG and break it appart to get composable pieces >>>> and use Pharom to describe FamixNG >>>> >>>> We are open to discussions but to a certain extent. >>>> >>>> Then we will work on optimise for space. >>>> In addition we will do a call to collect all the points that should be improve in Moose. >>>> >>>> We will >>>> collect >>>> prioritze >>>> and tackle them >>>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> www.feenk.com >>> >>> "Yesterday is a fact. >>> Tomorrow is a possibility. >>> Today is a challenge." >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "What we can governs what we wish." > > > > -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/