[Cuis] Solitaire updated for 2203

[Juan Vuletich]

On 3/28/2015 11:02 PM, Ken.Dickey wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:14:07 -0700
> Casey Ransberger<casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> So did you do the continuation passing thing entirely with block closures?
> Guilty as charged.
>
>> If so, I have to say I kind of like not having to add a class. But making the code easy to debug has some goodness to it as well.
> I don't think callcc/currentDo: will be esier to debug.  I'm just starting to play with the trivial port of Continuation from SeaSide.
>
> I suspect it will take me some time to find a style which helps.  Elegance takes much time, not that I have much.
>
>> Anyway, cool:)
> Glad you think so.
>
> Great to have real closures in Squeak/Cuis/Pharo after many years of context blocks.  Closures are so much more usable!
>
> Basically CPS was just the easiest way to get the control flow explicit so that it could be disentangled from the animation.
>
> I am still trying for "the simplest thing that will work".
>
> It sometimes takes an amazing amount of work to find the right simplicity.

Indeed. You must first understand all the superfluous stuff well enough 
to know what to remove and what to keep...

Now that you have published Continuations for Cuis, I took a look at 
them... And found at http://www.jquigley.com/files/talks/continuations.pdf :

"Even hard-core continuation fans don’t use them directly except as 
means to implement better-behaved abstractions."

Besides, Continuations require reification of the execution context as a 
regular object (to be gc'ed later), instead of just a stack. I believe 
this means that using Continuations to implement control structures to 
be used for coding could have a significant performance penalty.

I hope you'll eventually reach a style based on morphic stepping, that 
is simple enough to code and debug.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

> Cheers,
> -KenD