https://tonyg.github.io/squeak-actors/

Tony Garnock-Jones:

It’s a package for Squeak Smalltalk. It can load and cache static, prerendered map tiles from a variety of sources including OpenStreetMaps, Bing Maps, and so on.

It includes a geocoder query service which maps free-text queries to regions of the planet’s surface. The service can be backed by the Nominatim service (associated with OpenStreetMaps), the Bing geocoder, the Google geocoder, and so on.

Selection of tilesets is independent of selection of geocoder, so you can mix and match.

The package includes a “slippy map” morph called TiledMapMorph, that allows interaction with a map using the mouse. It includes a few hooks for EToys, too, so EToys scripting of the map is possible.

See: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2800 for more info.

Hi Folks,

Satellogic was featured today at Nature News!

I helped design and build the hyperspectral cameras in our satellites
Fresco and Batata. And I wrote the geometric and spectral processing
software for that image. This is not completely off topic, though: The
geometric software (image rectification and correction), the most
complex part of the processing, was written by me in Cuis Smalltalk, and
runs in a Cuis Smalltalk + OpenCL application.

Please share my joy today!

—
Juan Vuletich
www.cuis-smalltalk.org
https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
@JuanVuletich

http://www.nature.com/news/earth-observing-companies-push-for-more-advanced-science-satellites-1.22034

“Some firms are beginning to explore hyperspectral imaging, which spans a wide range of wavelengths, allowing the detection of specific chemicals. In 2016, Satellogic of Buenos Aires launched two 35-kilogram satellites equipped with custom-designed cameras and light filters. Last month, the company became the first commercial supplier of hyperspectral data. Satellogic’s goal is to fly about 300 satellites, together capable of imaging any location on Earth.

And it has already begun to appeal to scientists. The company announced in January that it would give researchers free access to its 30-metre-resolution hyperspectral data. These span optical and near-infrared wavelengths and can help track water pollution and oil spills, and monitor the health of forests and crops. “We are receiving contacts from scientists all over the world,” says Satellogic chief executive Emiliano Kargieman.”

Eliot gave a terrific presentation about the current state of the community and what we might do to improve it.

Evelyn (Lin) Ostrom

1933-2012

Eight principles for managing a commons

1. Clearly defined boundaries
2. Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs
3. Collective choice arrangements
4. Monitoring
5. Graduated sanctions
6. Fast and fair conflict resolutions
7. Local autonomy
8. Polycentric governance

http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/commons-strategies

http://fast.org.ar/talks/lubrication-and-flow

Editorial: by Ron Teitelbaum follows

Eliot gave the presentation to help get the discussion going (it’s not the start of the conversation either, there are earlier efforts like the Pharo Consortium) this Article is part of that discussion.

My take on the conversation is that there are really two aspects of what Eliot is discussing.

First that some sort of economic organization that helps Smalltalk is needed and that the organization should be used to help both programmers and customers.  It seems to me that a Smalltalk Guild could be set up to do just that.  It would be a place for customers to find certified developers with access to a group of people (other guild members) that can solve difficult problems if they get stuck.  It could also be a place where members who make over a certain amount of money could get proportional benefits.  As a developer. I would probably join such a guild and as a customer, I would love to have a place to go which could help me solve some programming issues.

Second that we need to have better visibility, coordination, and cooperation.  The cost of coordination using technology is falling fast.  Having a site that pairs tasks with developers, shows developers guild certifications, allows for customer and developer ratings and comments, highlights training materials and growth paths, and generally allows communities to form and disband around specific areas funded by companies or the guild itself would fundamentally change how we organize and grow the community.

To illustrate let’s say we form a Smalltalk Guild.  Members pay $10 a year to join + %10 of what they make on jobs they get through the Guild Jobs.  Companies can also join the guild and pay $100 per year and pay %10 in addition to what they pay for a job if they hire a Guild member to do the work.  (These are just made up figures I have no idea if they would actually work and some study would be needed to figure that out).  As a group, the Guild can provide Training for new members, create certification levels and growth plans.  The incentive for the group is that as members grow and make more money everyone benefits, there is an incentive to make sure people are qualified, can do the work, and actually get work instead of doing nothing (like java programming).  Users that contribute over 10k to the guild (earn 90K) can get benefits if they are out of work, or maybe healthcare on a group plan, some form of compensation which of course would be less than they contribute + generate in customer fees and would be decided by the Guild as Eliot says 0.N/X.  This gives the best guild members an incentive to stay with the guild and to feel like the guild is helping them provide some basic needs and it allows the guild to acknowledge the contributions the member is putting in to help the entire group.  The money could also be used to benefit the Guild.  To pay for someone’s training or certification, to increase visibility, to look for donors, find new customers, invest in new training materials, new conferences, courses, or even develop technology like the VM or application frameworks based on the group’s collective choices.

7th Workshop on the Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools (PLATEAU)

Co-located with SPLASH 2016

Amsterdam, Netherlands

PLATEAU 2016

http://2016.splashcon.org/track/plateau2016

CALL FOR PAPERS

Programming languages exist to enable programmers to develop software effectively. But how efficiently programmers can write software depends on the usability of the languages and tools that they develop with. The aim of this workshop is to discuss methods, metrics and techniques for evaluating the usability of languages and language tools. The supposed benefits of such languages and tools cover a large space, including making programs easier to read, write, and maintain; allowing programmers to write more flexible and powerful programs; and restricting programs to make them more safe and secure.

PLATEAU gathers the intersection of researchers in the programming language, programming tool, and human-computer interaction communities to share their research and discuss the future of evaluation and usability of programming languages and tools.

TOPICS

Some particular areas of interest are:

• empirical studies of programming languages
• methodologies and philosophies behind language and tool evaluation
• software design metrics and their relations to the underlying language
• user studies of language features and software engineering tools
• visual techniques for understanding programming languages
• critical comparisons of programming paradigms
• tools to support evaluating programming languages
• psychology of programming
• domain specific language (e.g. database languages, security/privacy languages, architecture description languages) usability and evaluation

PLATEAU encourages submissions of three types of papers:

Research and position papers: We encourage papers that describe work-in-progress or recently completed work based on the themes and goals of the workshop or related topics, report on experiences gained, question accepted wisdom, raise challenging open problems, or propose speculative new approaches. We will accept two types of papers: research papers up to 8 pages in length; and position papers up to 2 pages in length.

Hypotheses papers: Hypotheses papers explicitly identify beliefs of the research community or software industry about how a programming language, programming language feature, or programming language tool affects programming practice. Hypotheses can be collected from mailing lists, blog posts, paper introductions, developer forums, or interviews. Papers should clearly document the source(s) of each hypothesis and discuss the importance, use, and relevance of the hypotheses on research or practice. In addition, we invite language designers to share some of the usability reasoning that influenced their work. These will serve as an important first step in advancing our understanding of how language design supports programmers.Papers may also, but are not required to, review evidence for or against the hypotheses identified. Hypotheses papers can be up to 4 pages in length.

Submission site: PLATEAU papers should be submitted via HotCRP.

https://plateau2016.hotcrp.com/

Format: Submissions should use the SIGPLAN Proceedings Format (http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Author/), 10 point font. Note that by default the SIGPLAN Proceedings Format produces papers in 9 point font. If you are formatting your paper using LaTeX, you will need to set the 10pt option in the \documentclass command. If you are formatting your paper using Word, you may wish to use the provided Word template that supports this font size. Please include page numbers in your submission. Setting the preprint option in the LaTeX \documentclass command generates page numbers. Please also ensure that your submission is legible when printed on a black and white printer. In particular, please check that colors remain distinct and font sizes are legible.

All types of papers will be published in the ACM Digital Library at the authors’ discretion.

KEYNOTE

Alan Blackwell

Professor

Computer Laboratory

University of Cambridge

Cambridge, United Kingdom

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/

DATES

Submission deadline: August 1, 2016

PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Kelly Blincoe, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

Jeff Carver, University of Alabama, USA

Kathi Fisler, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA

Tudor Gîrba, Independent, Switzerland

Stefan Hanenberg, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Andrew Ko, University of Washington, USA

Brad Myers, Carnegie Mellon University, USA

Peter-Michael Osera, Grinnell College, USA

Janet Siegmund, University of Passau, Germany

Jeremy Singer, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom

Emma Söderberg, Google, USA

Andreas Stefik, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

Ian Utting, University of Kent, United Kingdom

Philip Wadler, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

ORGANIZERS

Craig Anslow, Middlesex University, UK

Thomas LaToza, George Mason University, USA

Joshua Sunshine, Carnegie Mellon University, USA