[Pharo-project] Network training
leves at elte.hu
Sat Feb 5 03:47:48 CET 2011
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 5 February 2011 00:53, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>> On 5 February 2011 00:12, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Luc Fabresse wrote:
>>>>> Yes, but hopefully we will be SocketPlugin free.
>>>> Is SocketPlugin buggy?
>>>> If yes, where's the bug report?
>>>> If not, what's the problem with it?
>>> Just one: it is highly resistant to evolution and changes. As well as
>>> everything else in VM.
>> Does the Socket API change often? No. I'm sure all my 10 years old network
>> code (written in C) would compile and run on the first try.
> I can tell you more:
> Does C syntax changes often? No. So, then why there so many silly
> people wasting their time writing own compilers for it?
> Or why people inventing new languages? Isn't C enough? :)
Why do you compare APIs wrapping the OS's socket API to programming
languages? I don't see how is the two similar at all.
> Levente, when is the last time you checked the meaning of word
> 'development' in dictionary?
I can tell you what's not developement: Throwing away working solutions
without a reason, then writing something similar. That's reinventing the
wheel + optional NIH syndrome.
>>>>> At the end, "There can be only one" (FFI or Alien or NB or a better one)
>>>>> IMHO, plugins are a pain to understand, maintain, integrate in the
>>>>> so let's kill them as much as possible.
>>>> Maintaining SocketPlugin (or reimplementing for a new plaform) is a lot
>>>> easier than doing the same with FFI or Alien.
>>> I wouldn't say so.
> Because coding in smalltalk much easier than in C.
> Including cases, when you need to communicate with external library using C ABI.
> Otherwise, why would i be sitting here? And why VM written in
> smalltalk?.. For same reason, bro :)
That's not an anwser to my question, but I see your point.
>> Couldn't you reimplement SocketPlugin from scratch without looking at the
>> current implementation in at most a few days? I could, so I'm sure you could
>> do that too. The same is not true for FFI or Alien (at least not for me).
> So you have something to learn left in this world :)
>>>> Eliot's threaded FFI plugin is
>>>> very complex compared to (the pretty simple) SocketPlugin.
>>> It could be simple too. But just not fast enough :)
>>> There's always a lot of tradeoffs to consider.
>> It could be, but it's not.
> You will never know if you don't try.
I'm talking about Eliot's FFI implementation, while you're talking about
> And besides, what is your point?
> People learning network by implementing own network layer. Exploring
> something new and trying to adopt design
> to their own vision/mindset.
There's nothing wrong with that, until they don't start saying that the
plugin sucks without telling what's the problem with it.
> Now you came and saying "you are on the losing side, because A, B, C"..
> Do, you think people should learn SocketPlugin instead? Been there did
> that. Frankly, don't want to touch it again or teach people about it.
> I seen much more cleaner and robust socket library OO wrappers. Not in
> smalltalk though.
And you're doing the same now. You say it sucks, but you don't tell what's
wrong with it.
> P.S. Don't take me wrong. Yes there is a lot to learn from
> SocketPlugin. But you would better spend time learning/reading other
I didn't say that anyone should learn from SocketPlugin. Forget the
plugin. People should learn how the API works that SocketPlugin provides.
Not many people know how to use it according to my earlier discussions on
this list about networking.
> well written and well documented multithreaded library for serving
> socket connections.
Without pointing to those better libraries and the things they do better
than the current solution, this is just an empty phrase.
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Pharo-project