A new critical blog discussing Seaside - now concrete proposals

> Woaw Peter relax a bit,
>
> Are you fighting against the devil himself? I'm not involved in Seaside
> development in any way but don't you think that a more positive approach
> will give better results?
> As an exercise on good behaviour on mailing lists i'll try to
> reformulate your point.
>
> "
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've been working with Seaside on VW and it seems to me that some
> Smalltalk coding conventions have been forgotten. It makes the code hard
> to read (at least for me). Here are some examples:
>
> - factory methods should generally start with "new".
> WATree class root: anObject
> would be more clear if named:
> WATree class newWithRoot: anObject
>
> - In VW, it seems that namespaces bindings are quite slow.
>
> - WARequest behaviour seems to be spread in the system. It makes
> debbuging harder than necessary.
>
> - Usage of string instead of symbols. Example:
> WARenderContinuation -> shouldRedirect: aRequest
> ^ aRequest isGet not or: [(aRequest fields includesKey: '_n') not]
>
> The string '_n' is used in many places in the code. Why not a symbol? Is
> there any technical reason?
>
> - ...
>
> That were some points that annoyed me in Seaside, if you want i can
> provide a detailed list, fill some tickets and provide some patches...
>
> Cheers,
> Peter Jedermann
>
> "
>
> Easy enough isn't it? Certainly not ideal but people would certainly
> listen and discuss about the issues you address.
>
> Have fun,
>
>
> Francois
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> Could settle for discussing this either on the blog on or the list?
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
> 2009/4/18  <[hidden email]>:
> > My answer is on my blog!
> >
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> >> Datum: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:56:40 -0700
> >> Von: Avi Bryant <[hidden email]>
> >> An: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]>
> >> Betreff: Re: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside - now
> concrete  proposals
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:23 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > I have added some first concrete proposals to my new critical blog on
> >> Seaside: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
> >> >
> >> > May I also propose to get away from these personal and emotional
> >> discussions here and to advance to some proper work. I have started
> with my
> >> proposals on my blog.
> >>
> >> Great.  Let's look at them.
> >>
> >> The first post I come to is "Proposal 3: Stick to Smalltalk naming
> >> conventions".
> >>
> >> Some excerpts:
> >>
> >> "One of the most commonly used and undisputed convention says that a
> >> factory method, which creates a new instance, should start with the
> >> word "new".
> >>
> >> This common convention is consistently ignored in Seaside!
> >>
> >> This is very very bad style! Absolutely amateurish and far away from
> >> "engineering"!
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Why the hell can't you adhere to what the great majority of
> >> Smalltalkers has been successfully doing for more than 25 years?!
> >>
> >> Therefore, I strongly urge you to finally adhere to what is commonly
> >> regarded as Smalltalk convention! You are definitely not any cleverer
> >> or better than the forefathers of Smalltalk at PARC (and, of course,
> >> neither am I)! You are most likely some bright but rather young guys
> >> with little experience. "
> >>
> >> Gee.  I better go and look at some of those 25 year old classes to see
> >> what conventions, in fact, the forefathers at PARC were using.  Let's
> >> look in Squeak, which is the closest modern equivalent to the original
> >> Smalltalks.
> >>
> >> Point's factory method is #x:y: .  No "new" there.  Amateurish, I
> >> guess.  But maybe it's an isolated case.
> >>
> >> How about Association?  I see #key:value:.  Still no "new"; I guess
> >> the forefathers were having an off day.
> >>
> >> Here's one on Fraction: #numerator:denominator:.  The initials on that
> >> one look familiar: "di".  Never mind, though, Dan Ingalls is probably
> >> some bright young guy with little experience.  Maybe you should set
> >> him straight?
> >>
> >> Avi
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> seaside mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
> > --
> > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit
> allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre
> de Peter Jedermann
> Enviado el: Saturday, April 18, 2009 00:13
> Para: Seaside - general discussion
> Asunto: Re: RE: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing
> Seaside - nowconcreteproposals
>
> Not one word on facts! Nothing but personal allegations!
>
> You seem to be personally hurt! Of course, that was not my
> intention and I am sure that the cause for this must be in
> yourself alone. I wanted nothing but to discuss facts and
> massive problems!
>
> Anyway, I am not wasting my time on personal discussions!
>
> Please read my block and when I could convince you of me
> seriousness, then we can continue discussing Smalltalk subjects!
>
> And if you think that my arguments are wrong, then either
> prove me wrong or ignore me.
>
> Best regards
> Mr. Cucumber
> (fresh and without any herbicides)
>
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:44:51 -0300
> > Von: "Sebastian Sastre" <[hidden email]>
> > An: "\'Seaside - general discussion\'"
> <[hidden email]>
> > Betreff: RE: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing
> Seaside - now concreteproposals
>
> > > @Sebastian: If you value an argument from a person who's name
> > > you know higher because just of that, pardonnez-moi, je
> > > m'excuse, but this would a clear sign of incompetence.
> > >
> > Well you clearily didn't get it. I've anticipated an ad hominem
> > contra-agumentation and that's why I've ended my response
> clarifiying "I
> > consider good critics as precious".
> > If you read carefully you'll see I didn't say anything
> about who make the
> > critics.
> > But instead of that you've decided to put yourself in the
> position of
> > calling me
> > something like "an incompetent signaler" for no reason from
> an annonymous
> > position.
> >
> > > > leaded by whom?
> > > Only led by arguments!
> > >
> > Please explain how that statement could be possibly be talking about
> > leadership
> > wisdom?
> > If for some reason you still think that you can convert
> anyone just by
> > saying
> > that respond with real life examples of succesful, healthy
> and wealth
> > comunities
> > created from ideas supported by annonymous leaders. I'll be
> all ears.
> >
> > > This is also another reason why I will stay anonymous. I want
> > > to improve the subject and not gain personal respect by some
> > > community (as Thorsten proposed and wrote that this is a
> > > prerequisite to be taken seriously). Forget it!
> > >
> > If you pretend to seduce for colaboration try harder. Play teamwork.
> > That's my
> > whole point. Showing off annonymous modesty will not even be near to
> > compensate
> > the damage your attitude is making to the Seaside brand.
> > Randal answered you with wise questions:
> > "- Do you want Seaside to succeed?
> > - Or do you just want to point out that Seaside has failed
> you, without
> >   actually having tried to help Seaside?"
> > I'd add:
> > - Do you like to be another success story by using seaside?
> > - If that happens are you willing to share moral credits?
> > Your current attitude is telling here that you don't
> recognise the efforts
> > that
> > are being invested in Seaside. Also your attitude is
> telling here that not
> > only
> > you are not recognising the efforts but you are also taking actions
> > against
> > those efforts by talking with intense anger in a public
> list and blogging
> > about
> > that in that tone. All that because you decided to react
> like that because
> > you
> > find minor inconveniences in a fantastically productive
> machine called
> > Seaside.
> > I think you are pain for your own reasons and you didn't make your
> > homework to
> > let the water go under the bridge and move on the progress line in
> > teamwork.
> > Think about your competence on that and if you found any
> 'bug' do what a
> > smalltaker knows that works: do something about it and find
> out how to fix
> > that.
> >
> > You know.. this is an open comunity based on volunteerism.
> You can show us
> > you
> > understamd that with several signals. For instance by stopping the
> > corporativistic dictatoship talking. And specially the intolerance
> > talking. If
> > you won't then just reserve that for the internal part of
> your cranium
> > and/or
> > your poor subordinates. It is not only near to be helping
> you to seduce
> > not one
> > volunteer but is also letting you in the position of a
> troll. I think
> > that's the
> > real reason of your annonymousity: you have fear about the
> reaction of the
> > comunity will burn your reputation as a contributor to seaside.
> > That's because you can't inpire anything valuable with this
> actions you've
> > made.
> > Put that toghether with the dictatorship talk and you have
> a perfect lack
> > of
> > leadership know how.
> > That's sad man. Really. Whoever you are, review that for
> your own good.
> >
> >
> > > Either people believe in my arguments and want to profit from
> > > my very comprehensive experience - or not. In the latter case
> > > we will continue in our own style as we did in the past.
> Nothing lost.
> > >
> > > Or I might find some people who are willing to jump onto our
> > > boat and travel with us, because we share the same believes
> > > and goals. In this case we would just subclass (as we already
> > > did in many cases) where major changes are wanted and that's it!
> > >
> > Some people that will never found you because you're
> annonymous right? if
> > you're
> > not kidding then you really should fire the marketer of the
> campaign of
> > your
> > cause right now.
> >
> > > Seaside is too important for us to either forget about it or
> > > to live with - sorry for my openess - this horrible lausy
> > > amateurish and undocumented code of Release 2.8. This is
> > > unacceptable for us to build products upon.
> > >
> > And who is obligating you to do it in the first place?
> >
> >
> > > These authors of Seaside (whom I don't know) really had some
> > > crazy ideas!
> > >
> > > Just remember this f... (4-letter word left out with respect
> > > to those who believe in PC)stupid idiotic url path "/Seaside/do".
> > >
> > > What a crazy idea!
> > >
> > > It took us several days in the beginning to get this rubbish
> > > out! It was done in such a fancy way that was really
> > > difficult for somebody not (yet) knowing the system. And
> > > there were many complains about that here on the list.
> > >
> > > What an idiotic and unrealistic idea! And why so badly
> implemented.
> > >
> > You are just yelling. You are pointless here. Stop trolling, present
> > arguments
> > as a real person and proposals if you want attention from
> adult people.
> >
> > > Now, you can't expect me to have respect for people doing
> > > such a bullshit! And my expectation from life experience***
> > > was that these people would be immune to advice. This is why
> > > I chose the public block to discuss improvements outside this
> > > "social community" here!
> > >
> > Due to your previous contributions I don't think people
> here will miss
> > you.
> > Differently from great leaders you are not making for the community
> > anything to
> > be missed so...
> >
> > > Therefore, don't expect me to participate here too
> > > frequently. I have no time for such discussions. I want to
> > > get my project moving and that means improving Seaside.
> > >
> > > Everybody is welcome to join - and I will be most eager and
> > > happy to learn from other people's experiences and follow
> > > their advice. But now on this previous low-level of "Seaside
> > > standards". Non, merci!
> > >
> > Remember what you've done. The attitude you presented here
> by doing this
> > is
> > contradicting any welcoming not by the content but just by
> the sad way you
> > did
> > it.
> > Go ahed, best success. Contract better marketing campaigns
> for the future
> > sebastian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s
> mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> Heh, faaaar from being hurt :)
> Technically I don't share your view about any of the problems you mention
> as
> "massive problems".
> Fortunately Seaside success is not coupled to your cause.
> By the way, reading your blog I can see personal allegations is your
> favourite
> way to argument positions.
> After the things said and your response to it you are showing zero willing
> for
> reflection about your attitude. A waste.
> Of course I'm interested in Seaside to get better. That includes the brand
> Seaside getting better which your emails and blog tone *proves the fact*
> you are
> totally ignoring. And you show compromise to a plan that works against it.
> sebastian
>
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre
> > de Peter Jedermann
> > Enviado el: Saturday, April 18, 2009 00:13
> > Para: Seaside - general discussion
> > Asunto: Re: RE: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing
> > Seaside - nowconcreteproposals
> >
> > Not one word on facts! Nothing but personal allegations!
> >
> > You seem to be personally hurt! Of course, that was not my
> > intention and I am sure that the cause for this must be in
> > yourself alone. I wanted nothing but to discuss facts and
> > massive problems!
> >
> > Anyway, I am not wasting my time on personal discussions!
> >
> > Please read my block and when I could convince you of me
> > seriousness, then we can continue discussing Smalltalk subjects!
> >
> > And if you think that my arguments are wrong, then either
> > prove me wrong or ignore me.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Mr. Cucumber
> > (fresh and without any herbicides)
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > Datum: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:44:51 -0300
> > > Von: "Sebastian Sastre" <[hidden email]>
> > > An: "\'Seaside - general discussion\'"
> > <[hidden email]>
> > > Betreff: RE: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing
> > Seaside - now concreteproposals
> >
> > > > @Sebastian: If you value an argument from a person who's name
> > > > you know higher because just of that, pardonnez-moi, je
> > > > m'excuse, but this would a clear sign of incompetence.
> > > >
> > > Well you clearily didn't get it. I've anticipated an ad hominem
> > > contra-agumentation and that's why I've ended my response
> > clarifiying "I
> > > consider good critics as precious".
> > > If you read carefully you'll see I didn't say anything
> > about who make the
> > > critics.
> > > But instead of that you've decided to put yourself in the
> > position of
> > > calling me
> > > something like "an incompetent signaler" for no reason from
> > an annonymous
> > > position.
> > >
> > > > > leaded by whom?
> > > > Only led by arguments!
> > > >
> > > Please explain how that statement could be possibly be talking about
> > > leadership
> > > wisdom?
> > > If for some reason you still think that you can convert
> > anyone just by
> > > saying
> > > that respond with real life examples of succesful, healthy
> > and wealth
> > > comunities
> > > created from ideas supported by annonymous leaders. I'll be
> > all ears.
> > >
> > > > This is also another reason why I will stay anonymous. I want
> > > > to improve the subject and not gain personal respect by some
> > > > community (as Thorsten proposed and wrote that this is a
> > > > prerequisite to be taken seriously). Forget it!
> > > >
> > > If you pretend to seduce for colaboration try harder. Play teamwork.
> > > That's my
> > > whole point. Showing off annonymous modesty will not even be near to
> > > compensate
> > > the damage your attitude is making to the Seaside brand.
> > > Randal answered you with wise questions:
> > > "- Do you want Seaside to succeed?
> > > - Or do you just want to point out that Seaside has failed
> > you, without
> > >   actually having tried to help Seaside?"
> > > I'd add:
> > > - Do you like to be another success story by using seaside?
> > > - If that happens are you willing to share moral credits?
> > > Your current attitude is telling here that you don't
> > recognise the efforts
> > > that
> > > are being invested in Seaside. Also your attitude is
> > telling here that not
> > > only
> > > you are not recognising the efforts but you are also taking actions
> > > against
> > > those efforts by talking with intense anger in a public
> > list and blogging
> > > about
> > > that in that tone. All that because you decided to react
> > like that because
> > > you
> > > find minor inconveniences in a fantastically productive
> > machine called
> > > Seaside.
> > > I think you are pain for your own reasons and you didn't make your
> > > homework to
> > > let the water go under the bridge and move on the progress line in
> > > teamwork.
> > > Think about your competence on that and if you found any
> > 'bug' do what a
> > > smalltaker knows that works: do something about it and find
> > out how to fix
> > > that.
> > >
> > > You know.. this is an open comunity based on volunteerism.
> > You can show us
> > > you
> > > understamd that with several signals. For instance by stopping the
> > > corporativistic dictatoship talking. And specially the intolerance
> > > talking. If
> > > you won't then just reserve that for the internal part of
> > your cranium
> > > and/or
> > > your poor subordinates. It is not only near to be helping
> > you to seduce
> > > not one
> > > volunteer but is also letting you in the position of a
> > troll. I think
> > > that's the
> > > real reason of your annonymousity: you have fear about the
> > reaction of the
> > > comunity will burn your reputation as a contributor to seaside.
> > > That's because you can't inpire anything valuable with this
> > actions you've
> > > made.
> > > Put that toghether with the dictatorship talk and you have
> > a perfect lack
> > > of
> > > leadership know how.
> > > That's sad man. Really. Whoever you are, review that for
> > your own good.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Either people believe in my arguments and want to profit from
> > > > my very comprehensive experience - or not. In the latter case
> > > > we will continue in our own style as we did in the past.
> > Nothing lost.
> > > >
> > > > Or I might find some people who are willing to jump onto our
> > > > boat and travel with us, because we share the same believes
> > > > and goals. In this case we would just subclass (as we already
> > > > did in many cases) where major changes are wanted and that's it!
> > > >
> > > Some people that will never found you because you're
> > annonymous right? if
> > > you're
> > > not kidding then you really should fire the marketer of the
> > campaign of
> > > your
> > > cause right now.
> > >
> > > > Seaside is too important for us to either forget about it or
> > > > to live with - sorry for my openess - this horrible lausy
> > > > amateurish and undocumented code of Release 2.8. This is
> > > > unacceptable for us to build products upon.
> > > >
> > > And who is obligating you to do it in the first place?
> > >
> > >
> > > > These authors of Seaside (whom I don't know) really had some
> > > > crazy ideas!
> > > >
> > > > Just remember this f... (4-letter word left out with respect
> > > > to those who believe in PC)stupid idiotic url path "/Seaside/do".
> > > >
> > > > What a crazy idea!
> > > >
> > > > It took us several days in the beginning to get this rubbish
> > > > out! It was done in such a fancy way that was really
> > > > difficult for somebody not (yet) knowing the system. And
> > > > there were many complains about that here on the list.
> > > >
> > > > What an idiotic and unrealistic idea! And why so badly
> > implemented.
> > > >
> > > You are just yelling. You are pointless here. Stop trolling, present
> > > arguments
> > > as a real person and proposals if you want attention from
> > adult people.
> > >
> > > > Now, you can't expect me to have respect for people doing
> > > > such a bullshit! And my expectation from life experience***
> > > > was that these people would be immune to advice. This is why
> > > > I chose the public block to discuss improvements outside this
> > > > "social community" here!
> > > >
> > > Due to your previous contributions I don't think people
> > here will miss
> > > you.
> > > Differently from great leaders you are not making for the community
> > > anything to
> > > be missed so...
> > >
> > > > Therefore, don't expect me to participate here too
> > > > frequently. I have no time for such discussions. I want to
> > > > get my project moving and that means improving Seaside.
> > > >
> > > > Everybody is welcome to join - and I will be most eager and
> > > > happy to learn from other people's experiences and follow
> > > > their advice. But now on this previous low-level of "Seaside
> > > > standards". Non, merci!
> > > >
> > > Remember what you've done. The attitude you presented here
> > by doing this
> > > is
> > > contradicting any welcoming not by the content but just by
> > the sad way you
> > > did
> > > it.
> > > Go ahed, best success. Contract better marketing campaigns
> > for the future
> > > sebastian
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > seaside mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
> > --
> > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s
> > mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> I have the impression that some guys need to be brought back down on  
> earth.
> Seaside is a Open Source project which is squeak based. If I would  
> blame the Seaside development team for working inacurate, regarding  
> coding conventions, I could blame a lot of Squeak-Based projects on  
> that. Some things like instance variable accessing is typically done  
> without accessor- and getter-methods within Squeak. I don't like  
> that too, but to be honest, I don't have the time to offer a  
> overworked version to the coreteam. I guess I'm not the only one  
> here...
> It's definetly true that Seaside is one of the most interesting  
> projects in the Smalltalk market right now, giving companies the  
> chance to offer something new and up-to-date.
> But I also think it's merely impossible to develop a smalltalk  
> project in squeak with the abillity to fullfill all advantages of  
> the ported target systems, like VW, VASmalltalk, Gemstone and  
> Dolphin...
> It's the business of Cincom, Instantiations, Gemstone, ObjectArts  
> and projects using Seaside for many years now, to support and  
> influence and support actual Seaside development in squeak to assure  
> the usability and optimization of Seaside Core.
>
> You can't offer the world a kind of combination of domestic animal  
> that produces eggs, wool, milk and can be grilled, or as we say in  
> Germany "eine Eierlegendewollmilchsau" and additional to that: "for  
> free".
> Seaside is not a completed proprietary product, but everybody  
> expects a robust in changes and optimal basis for writing a new next  
> gerneration 15 years lasting  Webapplication framework for the own  
> product family.
> Seaside is a sparetime project and it's a democratic project.  
> Everybody can join the Coreteam and can expend time to push it  
> forward.
>
> Well, I'm happy for everyone beeing able to get some money out of  
> Seaside.
> And I' m sure the whole Smalltalk community would be glad about more  
> Seasiders and Seaside-Profiteers helping Smalltalk to become more  
> interessing to newcomers again and support others to get a hand on  
> Seaside.
> Blogs like onsmalltalk.com for example, are worther than comments in  
> alternating alpha release classes.
>
> Thank's to everyone presenting, writing tutorials, books, blogs and  
> thanks to the coreteam for the help and advice you gave to me past  
> month!
> Thanks Cucumber for speaking out load what you think. There are  
> several point's I often have in mind reading over "Squeak-Code", but  
> some points might be hard to be solved just because nobody knows,  
> where the Seaside is heading to.
> The actual effords in seperating plattformdependent coding from  
> seasidecoding is an improvement I really appreciate.  It clearly  
> shows that these guys are willing to give a larger community an  
> access to Seaside. I could imagine that this is a lot harder than  
> just staying in Squeak.
> Profit in mind or not, I don't care. They deserve it.
>
>
> [|]
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________  
> Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>

> Thank you for these statements confirming my proposals:
>
>  
>> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance variables
>> directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to understand.
>>    
>
> Conclusion:
>
> It would be very simple to use accessor methods in Squeak and it's generally a good idea - not my (C) btw.
>
> I fully agree!
>
> So why aren't the Seaside authors willing to learn from such advice? Are these poults wiser than the hens? There was no argument brought up to justify this bad practice of direct instVar usage!
>
> More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
>  

> Hi Stef!
>> Just a side remark: seaside code quality is not equal to squeak-one.
>> So pay attention not to generalize too fast.
> It wasn't my intention to generalize.
> I'm no Smalltalk-Guru, but I think that I had very good Smalltalk  
> tutors past years. Many advices they gave me can be found in the two  
> books, which I always have around me. "Smalltalk with Style" and  
> "Smalltalk Patterns"... :-)
> I'm an absolute VASmalltalk (Visual Age) Guy and there are some  
> things, which I am missing in Squeak.

> That makes life a lot easier when it comes to writing core or  
> framework classes, that need to be used by others. It helps me a lot  
> to hide class specific coding from coding that may be used by  
> others. Newbiees are much faster able to find out what the class  
> does or should do. When you start with a basic Squeak image you are  
> not really aware of public and private methods...
> But that doesn't lead me to blameing all Squeak or especially  
> Seaside to be bullsh..... they are different somehow to codings that  
> VW and VA users are used to. But the reason of that is the basis.
> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance  
> variables directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to  
> understand.
> It's a fact, that coding conventions are more agressively assured in  
> industrial projects, than in open source projects, due to the fact,  
> that a lot more people get involved in those projects and those  
> projects may be overworked a lot more than commercial, critical  
> applications or frameworks.
> On the other hand I love to browse Squeak projects just because it  
> is often a good way, seeing other coding styles and algorithms,  
> where i can teach my self further.
> Even in Visual Age there are also a lot of classes, which don't  
> actually use accessors. But as Avi mentioned, these codings are  
> mainly old core classes and they have their root in early Smalltalk.  
> I have no idea, whether these codings are different to late 90'ies  
> coding due to performance reasons, or just a different philosophie  
> at that time.

> I guess that one also has to keep in mind, that every SmalltalkVM  
> has it's own strength and weakness.
> Getting all this together in the SeasideCore might be impossible.
> But as far as I know the Seaside Team, they absolutely have an open  
> ear for improvements.
> Having other ideas/priorities and just limited sparetime for  
> following those improvments, is no arrogance.
>
>>
>> I know it since we are cleaning squeak in pharo http://www.pharo-project.org
>> there is still a lot of work but everyday this is getting better.
>> We already have a lot more tests than most of smalltalk  
>> distributions. :)
>> We will run SmallLint on all our packages...
>
> I use pharo and really appreciate your effords!
>
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ Der  
> frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>

> You don't like "political correctness" which is fine, I don't like it
> either.. I do though think there is a thing called politeness, which is
> how I personally try to hamstring my communications.
>
> What I'm seeing a lot of on your blog and on your posts here is your
> personal opinion on certain engineering practices that you'retelling
> other people to do. Do you realize that people don't like being told how
> to think? There are many many "politically incorrect" words one can
> apply to somebody who does that.
>
> Anyway, my minor rant about your approach to communicating with people
> aside, on the matter of direct instance variable access, my personal
> development style, opinion and likes/dislikes lend toward using direct
> instance variable access wherever possible.
>
> For me, providing an accessor to a variable is like saying "this is not
> my personal encapsulated state, it is something you can fiddle with".
> That makes an accessor public API to me, so I won't create it unless I
> really mean it.
>
> The behavior of code on my class generally accesses the instance
> variables directly for a few reasons:
> a) Each object is its own "cell" (biology terms), it is already
> encapsulated
> b) The object has no need to lie to itself (ie: have the accessor return
> something other than the variable itself)
> c) Sending 'self' to yourself is a tad psychotic at times. it's a bit
> like type declarations in other programming languages.. how many times
> do you want me to repeat myself exactly?
>
> So there you have it. I don't agree with you - now you can vilify me
> too. Have at it.
>
> Michael
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Thank you for these statements confirming my proposals:
> >
> >  
> >> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance variables
> >> directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to understand.
> >>    
> >
> > Conclusion:
> >
> > It would be very simple to use accessor methods in Squeak and it's
> generally a good idea - not my (C) btw.
> >
> > I fully agree!
> >
> > So why aren't the Seaside authors willing to learn from such advice? Are
> these poults wiser than the hens? There was no argument brought up to
> justify this bad practice of direct instVar usage!
> >
> > More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
> >  
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

>
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Sebastian Heidbrink wrote:
>
> > Hi Stef!
> >> Just a side remark: seaside code quality is not equal to squeak-one.
> >> So pay attention not to generalize too fast.
> > It wasn't my intention to generalize.
> > I'm no Smalltalk-Guru, but I think that I had very good Smalltalk  
> > tutors past years. Many advices they gave me can be found in the two  
> > books, which I always have around me. "Smalltalk with Style" and  
> > "Smalltalk Patterns"... :-)
> > I'm an absolute VASmalltalk (Visual Age) Guy and there are some  
> > things, which I am missing in Squeak.
>
> Me too :)
>
> > Or let me better say, which I prefer and made my first steps in  
> > Squeak quite hard. Most important thing was the possibility to  
> > define methods public and private.
>
> How do you do that in VA?
> Because in squeak you could and the method was pvt....
>
> > That makes life a lot easier when it comes to writing core or  
> > framework classes, that need to be used by others. It helps me a lot  
> > to hide class specific coding from coding that may be used by  
> > others. Newbiees are much faster able to find out what the class  
> > does or should do. When you start with a basic Squeak image you are  
> > not really aware of public and private methods...
> > But that doesn't lead me to blameing all Squeak or especially  
> > Seaside to be bullsh..... they are different somehow to codings that  
> > VW and VA users are used to. But the reason of that is the basis.
> > It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance  
> > variables directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to  
> > understand.
> > It's a fact, that coding conventions are more agressively assured in  
> > industrial projects, than in open source projects, due to the fact,  
> > that a lot more people get involved in those projects and those  
> > projects may be overworked a lot more than commercial, critical  
> > applications or frameworks.
> > On the other hand I love to browse Squeak projects just because it  
> > is often a good way, seeing other coding styles and algorithms,  
> > where i can teach my self further.
> > Even in Visual Age there are also a lot of classes, which don't  
> > actually use accessors. But as Avi mentioned, these codings are  
> > mainly old core classes and they have their root in early Smalltalk.  
> > I have no idea, whether these codings are different to late 90'ies  
> > coding due to performance reasons, or just a different philosophie  
> > at that time.
>
> In 1990 there was a dogmas about accessor.
>
> > Anyhow, since I am programming Smalltalk, I read a lot discussions  
> > about which coding style is better and which is not, but I never saw  
> > a publication which made a performance test on different  
> > implementation styles.
>
> In VW and VA accessors should have nearly no impact since the jit  
> should do a good job.
>
> > I guess that one also has to keep in mind, that every SmalltalkVM  
> > has it's own strength and weakness.
> > Getting all this together in the SeasideCore might be impossible.
> > But as far as I know the Seaside Team, they absolutely have an open  
> > ear for improvements.
> > Having other ideas/priorities and just limited sparetime for  
> > following those improvments, is no arrogance.
> >
> >>
> >> I know it since we are cleaning squeak in pharo
> http://www.pharo-project.org
> >> there is still a lot of work but everyday this is getting better.
> >> We already have a lot more tests than most of smalltalk  
> >> distributions. :)
> >> We will run SmallLint on all our packages...
> >
> > I use pharo and really appreciate your effords!
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________ Der  
> > frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
> http://mail.yahoo.de
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

> Hello,
>
> and thank you for one of the few constructive discussion points to  
> my proposals.
>
> You brought up some good and serious arguments - although I  
> absolutely disagree to your view of these things.
>
> But I agree with you that this instVar direct usage subject very  
> much depends on:
>> personal development style, opinion and likes/dislikes
>
> But here I am on the other side of the river. I find accesors much  
> cleaner. And I see a lot of advanges in them, f.e. when one changes  
> the implementation (Dicts, Colls etc) or when one wants to intercept  
> changes to instVar values. This is often a pain with direct instVar  
> usage.

> Hoping to hear more from you on how to improve Seaside!
>
> Best regards
> Mr. Cucumber
> More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Datum: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:25:48 -0700
>> Von: Michael Lucas-Smith <[hidden email]>
>> An: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]>
>> Betreff: Re: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside -
>> Using getters/setters
>
>> You don't like "political correctness" which is fine, I don't like it
>> either.. I do though think there is a thing called politeness,  
>> which is
>> how I personally try to hamstring my communications.
>>
>> What I'm seeing a lot of on your blog and on your posts here is your
>> personal opinion on certain engineering practices that you'retelling
>> other people to do. Do you realize that people don't like being  
>> told how
>> to think? There are many many "politically incorrect" words one can
>> apply to somebody who does that.
>>
>> Anyway, my minor rant about your approach to communicating with  
>> people
>> aside, on the matter of direct instance variable access, my personal
>> development style, opinion and likes/dislikes lend toward using  
>> direct
>> instance variable access wherever possible.
>>
>> For me, providing an accessor to a variable is like saying "this is  
>> not
>> my personal encapsulated state, it is something you can fiddle with".
>> That makes an accessor public API to me, so I won't create it  
>> unless I
>> really mean it.
>>
>> The behavior of code on my class generally accesses the instance
>> variables directly for a few reasons:
>> a) Each object is its own "cell" (biology terms), it is already
>> encapsulated
>> b) The object has no need to lie to itself (ie: have the accessor  
>> return
>> something other than the variable itself)
>> c) Sending 'self' to yourself is a tad psychotic at times. it's a bit
>> like type declarations in other programming languages.. how many  
>> times
>> do you want me to repeat myself exactly?
>>
>> So there you have it. I don't agree with you - now you can vilify me
>> too. Have at it.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Thank you for these statements confirming my proposals:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance  
>>>> variables
>>>> directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>>
>>> It would be very simple to use accessor methods in Squeak and it's
>> generally a good idea - not my (C) btw.
>>>
>>> I fully agree!
>>>
>>> So why aren't the Seaside authors willing to learn from such  
>>> advice? Are
>> these poults wiser than the hens? There was no argument brought up to
>> justify this bad practice of direct instVar usage!
>>>
>>> More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
> --
> Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate +  
> Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>

> You don't like "political correctness" which is fine, I don't like it
> either.. I do though think there is a thing called politeness, which
> is how I personally try to hamstring my communications.
>
> What I'm seeing a lot of on your blog and on your posts here is your
> personal opinion on certain engineering practices that you'retelling
> other people to do. Do you realize that people don't like being told
> how to think? There are many many "politically incorrect" words one
> can apply to somebody who does that.
>
> Anyway, my minor rant about your approach to communicating with people
> aside, on the matter of direct instance variable access, my personal
> development style, opinion and likes/dislikes lend toward using direct
> instance variable access wherever possible.
>
> For me, providing an accessor to a variable is like saying "this is
> not my personal encapsulated state, it is something you can fiddle
> with". That makes an accessor public API to me, so I won't create it
> unless I really mean it.

>
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 7:42 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > and thank you for one of the few constructive discussion points to  
> > my proposals.
> >
> > You brought up some good and serious arguments - although I  
> > absolutely disagree to your view of these things.
> >
> > But I agree with you that this instVar direct usage subject very  
> > much depends on:
> >> personal development style, opinion and likes/dislikes
> >
> > But here I am on the other side of the river. I find accesors much  
> > cleaner. And I see a lot of advanges in them, f.e. when one changes  
> > the implementation (Dicts, Colls etc) or when one wants to intercept  
> > changes to instVar values. This is often a pain with direct instVar  
> > usage.
>
> no you use the refactoring browser + click on abstract and you get  
> your accessor and hack with it.
> In two clicks you can get a lazzy initialization scheme running.
>
> > Nevertheless, this was just one less important of many arguments  
> > that I brought up against current Seaside. You did not mention the  
> > usage of instVars outside their classes (like in my "fields" example  
> > in my WARequest posting) nor the spreading of implementation details  
> > over foreign classes.  Nor did you mention my other subjects,  
> > perhaps because you would have to agree?
>
> No we do not discuss topics that are not friendly presented in the list.
> Since your blog is far from polite and nearly insulting we will not  
> comment on your ideas.
> Now post them in a friendly way and you will probably get an answer:  
> look at the way philippe
> replied to my question -- and philippe is more a butcher than lukas  
> (believe me :)).
>
> > I understand that it would be hard for you to agree with somebody  
> > who has been so unconventionally open and verbally aggressive like  
> > me. But I felt some people here were asking for exactly this.
>
> No Mr Cucumber as michael said there is a difference between being  
> rude for nothing and being polite and just being politically correct.
> We are in a politically arena here just a friendly one where people  
> often drink beers together at events or share code
> and hope to meet one day.
>
> > Hoping to hear more from you on how to improve Seaside!
> >
> > Best regards
> > Mr. Cucumber
> > More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> >> Datum: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:25:48 -0700
> >> Von: Michael Lucas-Smith <[hidden email]>
> >> An: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]>
> >> Betreff: Re: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside -
> >> Using getters/setters
> >
> >> You don't like "political correctness" which is fine, I don't like it
> >> either.. I do though think there is a thing called politeness,  
> >> which is
> >> how I personally try to hamstring my communications.
> >>
> >> What I'm seeing a lot of on your blog and on your posts here is your
> >> personal opinion on certain engineering practices that you'retelling
> >> other people to do. Do you realize that people don't like being  
> >> told how
> >> to think? There are many many "politically incorrect" words one can
> >> apply to somebody who does that.
> >>
> >> Anyway, my minor rant about your approach to communicating with  
> >> people
> >> aside, on the matter of direct instance variable access, my personal
> >> development style, opinion and likes/dislikes lend toward using  
> >> direct
> >> instance variable access wherever possible.
> >>
> >> For me, providing an accessor to a variable is like saying "this is  
> >> not
> >> my personal encapsulated state, it is something you can fiddle with".
> >> That makes an accessor public API to me, so I won't create it  
> >> unless I
> >> really mean it.
> >>
> >> The behavior of code on my class generally accesses the instance
> >> variables directly for a few reasons:
> >> a) Each object is its own "cell" (biology terms), it is already
> >> encapsulated
> >> b) The object has no need to lie to itself (ie: have the accessor  
> >> return
> >> something other than the variable itself)
> >> c) Sending 'self' to yourself is a tad psychotic at times. it's a bit
> >> like type declarations in other programming languages.. how many  
> >> times
> >> do you want me to repeat myself exactly?
> >>
> >> So there you have it. I don't agree with you - now you can vilify me
> >> too. Have at it.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> [hidden email] wrote:
> >>> Thank you for these statements confirming my proposals:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance  
> >>>> variables
> >>>> directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to understand.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Conclusion:
> >>>
> >>> It would be very simple to use accessor methods in Squeak and it's
> >> generally a good idea - not my (C) btw.
> >>>
> >>> I fully agree!
> >>>
> >>> So why aren't the Seaside authors willing to learn from such  
> >>> advice? Are
> >> these poults wiser than the hens? There was no argument brought up to
> >> justify this bad practice of direct instVar usage!
> >>>
> >>> More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> seaside mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
> > --
> > Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate +  
> > Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!*
> http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a
> > _______________________________________________
> > seaside mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

>
> On Apr 18, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Sebastian Heidbrink wrote:
>
>> Hi Stef!
>>>
>>> Just a side remark: seaside code quality is not equal to squeak-one.
>>> So pay attention not to generalize too fast.
>>
>> It wasn't my intention to generalize.
>> I'm no Smalltalk-Guru, but I think that I had very good Smalltalk tutors
>> past years. Many advices they gave me can be found in the two books, which I
>> always have around me. "Smalltalk with Style" and "Smalltalk Patterns"...
>> :-)
>> I'm an absolute VASmalltalk (Visual Age) Guy and there are some things,
>> which I am missing in Squeak.
>
> Me too :)
>
>> Or let me better say, which I prefer and made my first steps in Squeak
>> quite hard. Most important thing was the possibility to define methods
>> public and private.
>
> How do you do that in VA?
> Because in squeak you could and the method was pvt....
>
>> That makes life a lot easier when it comes to writing core or framework
>> classes, that need to be used by others. It helps me a lot to hide class
>> specific coding from coding that may be used by others. Newbiees are much
>> faster able to find out what the class does or should do. When you start
>> with a basic Squeak image you are not really aware of public and private
>> methods...
>> But that doesn't lead me to blameing all Squeak or especially Seaside to
>> be bullsh..... they are different somehow to codings that VW and VA users
>> are used to. But the reason of that is the basis.
>> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance variables
>> directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to understand.
>> It's a fact, that coding conventions are more agressively assured in
>> industrial projects, than in open source projects, due to the fact, that a
>> lot more people get involved in those projects and those projects may be
>> overworked a lot more than commercial, critical applications or frameworks.
>> On the other hand I love to browse Squeak projects just because it is
>> often a good way, seeing other coding styles and algorithms, where i can
>> teach my self further.
>> Even in Visual Age there are also a lot of classes, which don't actually
>> use accessors. But as Avi mentioned, these codings are mainly old core
>> classes and they have their root in early Smalltalk. I have no idea, whether
>> these codings are different to late 90'ies coding due to performance
>> reasons, or just a different philosophie at that time.
>
> In 1990 there was a dogmas about accessor.
>
>> Anyhow, since I am programming Smalltalk, I read a lot discussions about
>> which coding style is better and which is not, but I never saw a publication
>> which made a performance test on different implementation styles.
>
> In VW and VA accessors should have nearly no impact since the jit should do
> a good job.