Related
I really like live smalltalk environment (though I only experimented a bit with Pharo), but there is one thing why I can't really use it for everyday development. It seems that it is not possible to create a native standalone executable from smalltalk system. The native standalone executable means to create a single executable file (PE on windows, ELF on linux, Mach-O on macosx), that a user could run by double clicking it without the need to install any additional execution environments. Am I missing something and it is in fact possible to create native standalone executable with smalltalk?
If we talk about Pharo specifically. I know that Pharo's environment includes efficient just in time compiler (that generates true native code from Pharo's VM bytecode), I know that the VM image can be stripped down by cutting of the code that my application won't ever need. So basically we already have almost everything (except the linker I guess) to be able to create native standalone executables. Cross-compilation shouldn't be a problem too, if we put all code generation stuff (for all target processors) in the image.
I know that in smalltalk world it is considered to be a good thing to deliver the whole VM image separately from the runtime environment, so the user can hack on software he/she is using. However I don't see any good reasons why it shouldn't be possible to deliver your smalltalk software as fully compiled native standalone executable. Could you please explain me why it is not a common thing to do in smalltalk world? Is there any good smalltalk implementation that allow to do it?
To sum all this. I dream of a live smalltalk environment, where I could develop and test my software, but then (when the software is actually ready for delivery) cross-compile it to native executables for windows, linux and macosx from my single development machine. That would be really awesome.
ironically enough there is one thing that an exe needs to be preloaded. Your OS. See the thing is that C/C++ can be so light because already your OS acts pretty much as the image acts with a ton of preloaded libraries. You need to waste several GBs of memory just get a simple calculator starting. Your OS is a collection of C/C++ libraries.
Things are not any prettier with other languages like python, java etc , even if the app is smaller, they still depend on this libs and they come will quite big libraries that would need installation whether your app use them or not.
Pharo and Smalltalk in general is diffirent case because they aspire to be a virtual OS by itself. The diffirence with a real OS , the smalltalk image is made to be hacked the easy way by a user .
Saying that you can rename the pharo executable, change its icon, disable to IDE tools inside Pharo so your user sees only the GUI of your App. Applications like Dr. Geo and Phratch already do this.
Compiling a Pharo project to a native executable will not make much difference, because a) Pharo is already compiled to a native executable b) you dont need to do that since Pharo is already standalone does not need to even be installed.
My advice is stop worrying about things that do not really matter and enjoy learning how powerful and fun Pharo can be.
Not Pharo, but native, compiled (through ANSI C or its own JIT) smalltalk [applications] (with ability to load pre-compiled DLLs or [JIT-]compile code on demand):
Smalltalk/X
http://www.exept.de/en/products/smalltalk-x.html
or (unofficial enhanced development version):
Smalltalk/X JV branch - https://swing.fit.cvut.cz/projects/stx-jv/
Nearly completely open-source. Everything except librun (core runtime - memory management, JIT, etc.) and stc (smalltalk-to-c) compiler is already open-source. Claus Gittinger / Exept also promised/confirmed they would release remaining sources were they to stop further development (AFAIK, those parts are closed only because of concerns of existing clients).
I highly recommend everyone to check it out, it is a wonder such a great implementation is so little known.
You might also check out Dolphin from Object Arts.
It is windows only, but the very best IDE, bar none.
If you do anything in Smalltalk, you should buy a copy.
(They also have a free non-commercial version, but you will
want to support the kind of craftsmanship behind it by buying
the Pro version. An absolutely kick-ass product, IMHO).
It will produce a standalone exe, if that's what you want.
I made an exe of a medium-featured wiki with it - the exe was
less than 1 MB. That is not a typo.
-Jim
The problem is that Pharo, in that case, cannot be compared to any native compiler like C, C++ or others, but more like java, python, ruby and other languages with a Virtual Machine around.
In these languages, you produce jars, eggs or gems to distribute your project.
In Pharo, you produce a "production image" following technics you already mentioned. But nothing prevents you to deliver an artefact including also the PharoVM (it is 2m large, after all), and you can prepare your apps to detect and open your production image (without having to ask for it).
It is about as practical with Smalltalk as with other languages: not very much. As soon as you create a somewhat larger application, you start depending on other libraries/applications being installed. If you compile them statically with the application, you have now created a much larger application that takes longer to download, and needs to be updated at least as soon as a security problem is found in one of the dependencies. If not, your application is no longer double-click startable.
There are two directions for solutions: web applications, and installers and package managers.
Squeak still maintains its one-click installer, allowing the same set of files to work on windows, mac and linux. Pharo used to have that too, but moved to having separate builds. The need hasn't been so large that the one-click build has been reinstated. It is mostly seen as useful to be able to carry around a cross-platform environment on an usb-stick. With the move to the 64-bit spur vm the dependency problems will lessen as more of the needed libraries will come pre-installed on those platforms.
Dolphin Smalltalk can produce a standalone .exe for Windows.
This is a key feature of the Pro version.
Your dream has been around since the mid-80's and it is called Smalltalk/X.
I'm just now starting to learn embedded linux system development and I'm wondering how to go about a few things. Mainly, I have questions about cross compiling. I know what cross compiling is but I'm wondering how to actually go about the whole process when it comes to writing the makefile and deploying the application to the board (mainly the makefile part though).
I've researched a good amount online and found a ton of different things have to be set whether it's in regards to the toolchain, the processor, etc. Are there any good resources to learn this topic and master it or could anyone explain the best way to go about it?
EDIT:
I'm not wondering about how to cross compile in general. I'm wondering about cross compiling already existing applications (e.g. openCV, samba, etc) for a target system from the host system (especially when there is no support regarding the process with the application, which is common).
Basically you just need a special embedded Linux distribution, that will take care of cross-compilation process. Take a look at for example Buildroot. In folder package you'll find package recipe examples.
For your own software build process you can take a look at CMake. libuci recipe shows, how to use CMake based projects in Buildroot.
This answer is based on my own experience, so you're to justify, if it suits your needs.
I learned everything about embedding Linux with these guys: http://free-electrons.com/
They not only offer free docs but also courses for successfully running your box with custom Linux distros. In my case, I achieved embedding uClinux in an board with MMU-less 32 bit CPU with 32 MB RAM. The Linux image just occupied 1MB.
I need to learn to program MSP430, but don't have the actual chip yet. All configurations that I've tried at Code Composer Studio (except Snapshot, but it does not count, right?) require something on my USB. How do I learn to program the chip without the chip?
And what is an emulator that requires a USB?
Online emulator (used chrome): http://www.msp430emulator.com
This MSP430 Emulator is open source, and can be used directly online without downloading anything. Still under construction but has a good debug interface. Unfortunately no integration with CCS.
It is on the TI Open source page: TI Open Source Project Page
"The MSP430 Online Emulator provides a complete software model of the MSP430 16-bit instruction set. It is an interactive debugger for advanced development and in depth firmware/hardware analysis. Peripherals include UART, GPIO Ports, BCM+, Timer_A, and more! Open source, and absolutely free - access to the TI MSP430 Launchpad allows you to effectively build and debug firmware. No hardware setup, emulate anytime anywhere!"
open source on github:
https://github.com/RudolfGeosits/MSP430-Emulator
If you need something implemented you can add to the code yourself and run a local emulation server for real time applications.
This emulator is pretty awesome, once you can get it running. Note that it does claim GDB support, which likely means you can get a pure eclipse CDT C project & CDT-GDB-HW-Debugging session up and running against it (making sure to compile with the msp430's tool chain, of course).
http://opencores.org/project,openmsp430
As far as a simulator, the answer is truly 'no'. I would like to be wrong on that... But consider for a moment the number of variants of the msp430, the peripherals, and so on. Not sure if any company can justify that kind of cost!
Especially when launchpad/etc are so cheap and fast.
If you can afford £10 then the launchpad is the way to go just to teach yourself about the MSP430. You can use either IAR Embedded Workbench or Code Composer Studio, both which come in code size limited version which will be plenty big enough to learn with. I don't like either, but of the two the IAR one is, IMHO, the better bet as it's not Eclipse based. If you don't mind Java and Eclipse, then CCS is a viable option for you. One huge advantage with CCS is it runs on Linux, but really, it's still not a patch on Rowley Crossworks which runs on Linux. The latter has a cheap educational licence.
As far as the emulator and USB question is concerned, it's maybe being slightly pedantic, but it's not an emulator, it's a debug interface. There is a debugger built into the chip that enables you to load the code into the chip, set breakpoints, single step through code.
This kit is a great way to start because the debugger interface is built into the kit, you can access pins on the processor, see LEDs come on and all that good stuff that gives you the warm feeling you're programming a chip properly. For the sake of £10 you'd be mad not to!
I have a plan to build a web-site which running CGI made with Cocoa.
My final goal is develop on Mac OS X, and run on FreeBSD.
Is this possible?
As I know, there is a free implementation of some NextStep classes, the GNUStep.
The web-site is almost built with only strings. I read GNUStep documents, classes are enough. DB connection will be made with C interfaces.
Most biggest problem which I'm concerning is linking and binary compatibility. I'm currently configuring FreeBSD on VirtualBox, but I wanna know any possibility informations about this from experts.
This is not a production server. Just a trial. Please feel free to saying anything.
--edit--
I confused Foundation and Cocoa frameworks. What I said was Foundation. Basic classes which just enough to manipulating strings.
It’s entirely possible to cross-develop using Xcode. The Cocotron does this – and provides an implementation of Foundation – but doesn’t currently target FreeBSD. You could probably use it as a template to set up cross-development for BSD targets using GNUstep, but it won’t be easy.
You should be OK with the GNUstep Foundation on FreeBSD 9.0 with Objective-C 2 (clang). See these instructions.
Note: Do not installing under '/' with a FreeBSD default install, because it has little space on the '/' partition. I've used /usr/local/gnustep instead, and made some links as the instructions suggest.
Note II: GNUstep sources from subversion repository didn't compile for me, so I used the latest stable GNUstep sources.
Yes, you can do this, and I am doing it right now successfully using FreeBSD 8.2 and Xcode 4.0, running the Foundation class from The Cocotron. Here is a link: describing exactly what I did to build the cross compiler and set everything up. I also detail in that post, how I attempted to get AppKit (GUI) to work. I failed, it may work in the future, it doesn't fully work yet.
So far it's great. I use a common codebase to write iPhone App (game client) and FreeBSD Game Server; after my server compiles I even have a target rsync the files to my dev box.
One more note, you mention DB, I'm successfully using mysqlclient libraries within my App and my post details how to do that. Since you're building a cross-compiler with The Cocotron you can use any library. Just install the library on FreeBSD first, then create the platform as described.
Sounds like your trying to shoehorn tools onto OS and hardware they were not designed for. There are hacks to get almost anything running on top of anything else but why ask for all the grief?
The entire point of the entire Apple API is that you have integration from hardware to OS to development tools. You supposed to pay more up front in return for greater robustness and lower over all lifecycle cost. (It doesn't always work just like Linux doesn't always save money and Windows doesn't always provide the software choices you need but that is the design goal.) When you break Apple's hardware-OS-Dev trinity you have to start fighting the API and the hardware instead of letting it work for you.
I don't think what you're doing will work and even if it does it will cost a lot of time and in the end time is money. Unless your being forced by external circumstances beyond your control to use this configuration, I would strongly suggest you do whatever it takes to find another way to accomplish what you want.
You won't get binary compatibility. Mac OS X uses the Mach-O object format and FreeBSD uses ELF, like linux. Cocoa won't work on platforms other than Mac OS, but if you stick to POSIX and open-source libraries though, you shouldn't have too much trouble building your CGI (and any dependencies) on your FreeBSD machine.
Also, Cocoa for a website? It's the Mac OS standard library for GUIs, associated datastructures, and various helpers. Apple used to promote something called WebObjects which was similar to Cocoa for the web, but I haven't heard anything about it in ages. I don't think Cocoa will work for a website, unless you just mean write a custom web server that has a graphical front-end in Cocoa.
Does iPhone SDK 3.0 or 3.1 support Power PC machines having Leopard 10.5 or above? If not then what's the solution for the same results, I have a Mac with Power PC and Panther. I will upgrade to Leopard and install iPhone SDK.
Okay. The answers so far are NOT correct. For some reason, the iPhone SDK has been shipping as a Universal Binary for ages. So, yes, you CAN use a Power PC mac for iPhone development. I've done it and it's verrry dirty.
It's involved and a serious pain. It doesn't work all of the time and there are numerous bugs. It works well enough if you're ABSOLUTELY dedicated and ABSOLUTELY cannot afford a new computer.
Basically, you need to hack up the install XML properties in the installation package. Get rid of the "Intel" check javascript-ish code and/or make it always return true. This will enable the "iPhone SDK" checkbox in the installer.
Once you install it, you can use the SDK and cross-compile to ARM (iPhone processor). The simulator even works, but your milage may vary. My experience was so awful that I simply purchased an Intel Power Mac.
You'll need to hack up the install script for every update. This will involve converting the DMG to read/write beforehand. Editing some Javascript embedded in the XML installation package. Then, hacking up your build properties to get rid of "Native System" selections. It's actually very very painful.
You can Google "how" to do it in more detail. I do not suggest EVER releasing to the Apple store with this method. If you just want to play and get accustomed to the platform, then it might work for you.
Again, I MUST stress, this is very very unstable and totally unsupported. Please know what you are doing before you even consider attempting it.
Yes, it's possible. No, it's not fun.
The iPhone SDK only works on Macs with Intel processors. If you want to save money, you might be able to get the iPhone SDK working on a Hackintosh, but building a Hackintosh may be illegal and applying software updates will be annoying.
I suggest looking for a cheap second-hand Intel-based Mac Mini.
As noted by Will, since the SDK only supports the Intel processors, you are limited to a newer Mac unless you build a Hackintosh which may or may not be legal. However, you also don't need the latest and greatest machine to write software with, although better hardware does help! So you have a couple of options if you are looking to save money in that you could get a refurbished Mac from Apple or check around on eBay or Craigslist to see if you could get one.