It would be nice if the JPMorgan folks could comment on this one (their system is now 20 years old I think, its huge, has had large numbers of people successfully working on it - concurrently) and I know they did leverage live coding ability particularly in error scenarios however there is a caveat - in that I think financial regulations curbed some of the live changeability to prevent any hint of fraud.
Tim > On 20 Jul 2017, at 09:19, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree > > The stupidity of opposing live coding is that they only language that a > computer can execute , machine code, is a live coding language. Live coding > is extremely essential for machine coding and it does this through several > way , using pointer registers to control flow of execution giving access to > its registers that can even store execution instructions etc etc. To make > matters worse for those opposing live coding , live coding is not only > implemented at machine code level but also OS level. Memory mapped files are > equivalent if not more powerful than Pharo images and there is also system > exceptions to capture errors and lively replace code and of course shared > memory which is crucial for the use of DLLs. There is also the ability of > loading code as data in a place in memory and then mark that area executable > and execute the code. > > It's the programming languages themselves that don't support live coding out > of the box with the convenience of Pharo but because they are obliged to > support OS features live coding is also something you can use with any > programming language out there. > > Live coding is pretty much in the core of computer technology. It's pretty > much obligatory for testing and debugging purposes which why also C debuggers > com with live coding features. > > Version control systems and sandboxes environments are unrelated to live > coding which is merely a way of coding and by no means against it with some > exceptions. > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 at 22:11, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com > <mailto:stepharo.s...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I do not see why live coding programming languages could not manage > their source code in versioning control system. > To me, people opposing live coding and released/versioned software are > just **PLAIN** idiots. > Period. > You can have a live reflective system and still want to have a fully > reproducible built system. > This is what we do with Pharo. We manage everything with a version > control system and still Pharo > is fully dynamic. And No not everybody can commit and change Pharo. > > About large and complex systems, I heard that an insurance company has > 30 Millions lines Smalltalk application. > and this system is live and also versioned! Hopefully. > So do not lose your energy with idiots. > > Stef > > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, jWarrior <dm...@erols.com > <mailto:dm...@erols.com>> wrote: > > Well ..... > > > > I worked on JWARS for 13 years until the Navy killed it at the end of 2010, > > and I have never heard of Miles Fidelman. JWARS was run almost exclusively > > in SCIFs (secure facilities), and most of the users did not have access to > > the source code. So I do not know where Miles gets his information. > > > > JWARS had extensive version control. All new versions of the main config > > maps were tagged with extensive information about what was included. > > > > I agree with what Richard says below, "I suspect Miles doesn't really > > understand what a “live coding environment” really means.", although I would > > phrase it less gently. > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://forum.world.st/Can-anyone-answer-this-tp4955861p4955916.html > > <http://forum.world.st/Can-anyone-answer-this-tp4955861p4955916.html> > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
