Quantcast

Are Objects really hard?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
91 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Guido Stepken

Hi Marcus!

Tnx for calling me a troll. Reminder:

http://forum.world.st/Hanging-connects-exhausted-resources-memory-leaks-bocked-everything-Unusable-td3669616.html

several month later:

http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/2012-February/059581.html

You've got serious problems *seeing reality*

With that attitude you and the Pharo team are even threatening Chris Muller's efforts on programming a HA OODB replacement for Gemstone with Magma.

So *please*, develop the development process!

Ok?

Tnx for understanding, Guido Stepken

Am 15.02.2012 09:50 schrieb "Marcus Denker" <[hidden email]>:

On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Guido Stepken wrote:

>
> Lookup Google "Pharo hanging" ... very few companies are really using Pharo, but i am not the only one reporting this.
>
> Tnx for the "troll".
>

It is much more interesting to google

       "Guido Stepken" Troll

Just have a look:

       http://www.google.com/search?ls=en&q=%22Guido+Stepken%22+Troll

We are not the only one who think that you are wasting everyones time.

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Camillo Bruni-3
Thanks guys for the daily amusement :D

rofl

On 2012-02-15, at 12:15, Guido Stepken wrote:

> Hi Marcus!
>
> Tnx for calling me a troll. Reminder:
>
> http://forum.world.st/Hanging-connects-exhausted-resources-memory-leaks-bocked-everything-Unusable-td3669616.html
>
> several month later:
>
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/2012-February/059581.html
>
> You've got serious problems *seeing reality*
>
> With that attitude you and the Pharo team are even threatening Chris Muller's efforts on programming a HA OODB replacement for Gemstone with Magma.
>
> So *please*, develop the development process!
>
> Ok?
>
> Tnx for understanding, Guido Stepken
>
> Am 15.02.2012 09:50 schrieb "Marcus Denker" <[hidden email]>:
>
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Guido Stepken wrote:
>
> >
> > Lookup Google "Pharo hanging" ... very few companies are really using Pharo, but i am not the only one reporting this.
> >
> > Tnx for the "troll".
> >
>
> It is much more interesting to google
>
>        "Guido Stepken" Troll
>
> Just have a look:
>
>        http://www.google.com/search?ls=en&q=%22Guido+Stepken%22+Troll
>
> We are not the only one who think that you are wasting everyones time.
>
> --
> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Marcus Denker-4
In reply to this post by Guido Stepken

On Feb 15, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Camillo Bruni wrote:

> Thanks guys for the daily amusement :D
>

I am now deleting his emails direcly in gmail... I would suggest everyone else to do the same.

        Marcus


--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Peter Hugosson-Miller
In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-4
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
It is much more interesting to google

       "Guido Stepken" Troll

Just have a look:

       http://www.google.com/search?ls=en&q=%22Guido+Stepken%22+Troll

Wow! "About 1,030 results", that's pretty impressive. Should we be honoured to have such a celebrity visiting us?

--
Cheers,
Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Toon Verwaest-2
In reply to this post by Guido Stepken

> Yes, 4-5 manyears? So, why reinventing the wheel, like with COGVM?
> LLVM ist much better supported by big, big, commercial companies.
>
Yes, LLVM has a great track-record of easing the development of dynamic
languages.
http://qinsb.blogspot.com/2011/03/unladen-swallow-retrospective.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [squeak-dev] Are Objects really hard?

H. Hirzel
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
On 2/11/12, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Again one interesting topic for this weekend to discuss. David Nolen, a
> Lisp and JavaScript guy posted in his blog an article titled Illiterate
> Programming [1] where he said:
>
> "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a
> programming language originally designed to scale from children to
> adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands
> to this day how to do them right...."
>
> He links to Alan Kay post [2] back in 1998 where he talks about problems
> with inheritance:
>
> "Here are a few problems in the naive inheritance systems we use today:
> confusions of Taxonomy and Parentage, of Specialization and Refinement,
> of Parts and Wholes, of Semantics and Pragmatics..."
>
> Let we concentrate on broader "Objects are really hard and no-one really
> understands to this day how to do them right" claim and not merely
> inheritance, please.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
> [1] http://dosync.posterous.com/illiterate-programming
> [2]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-April/009261.html
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> Aida/Web
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> http://www.aidaweb.si
>
>


Interestingly on the cited page

http://dosync.posterous.com/illiterate-programming

we read

"There's nothing more powerful in aiding readability than a small core
set of concepts. In this sense I think Smalltalk continues to be one
of the few languages to get anywhere near LISP. "

--Hannes

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Toon Verwaest-2
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Reminds me of http://www.infoq.com/interviews/foote-oop-code

On 02/11/2012 01:21 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Again one interesting topic for this weekend to discuss. David Nolen, a
> Lisp and JavaScript guy posted in his blog an article titled Illiterate
> Programming [1] where he said:
>
> "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a
> programming language originally designed to scale from children to
> adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands
> to this day how to do them right...."
>
> He links to Alan Kay post [2] back in 1998 where he talks about problems
> with inheritance:
>
> "Here are a few problems in the naive inheritance systems we use today:
> confusions of Taxonomy and Parentage, of Specialization and Refinement,
> of Parts and Wholes, of Semantics and Pragmatics..."
>
> Let we concentrate on broader "Objects are really hard and no-one really
> understands to this day how to do them right" claim and not merely
> inheritance, please.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
> [1] http://dosync.posterous.com/illiterate-programming
> [2]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-April/009261.html
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Janko Mivšek
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Hi guys,

Just to conclude this topic: there is a nice talk between Dave Thomas
(of OTI fame where IBM VisualAge Smalltalk and nowadays VA Smalltalk
came out), James Robertson and David Buck in recent Independent
Misinterpretations:

   IM 67: Have Objects Failed Us?
   http://www.jarober.com/blog/blogView?entry=3507708198

What I like is a discussion about OO vs. relational world and ORM in the
second half, which is also by my opinion the reason why OO didn't
succeed more as it did, and why is considered hard for most of
developers until our days.

Best regards
Janko


S, Janko Mivšek piše:

> Hi guys,
>
> Again one interesting topic for this weekend to discuss. David Nolen, a
> Lisp and JavaScript guy posted in his blog an article titled Illiterate
> Programming [1] where he said:
>
> "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a
> programming language originally designed to scale from children to
> adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands
> to this day how to do them right...."
>
> He links to Alan Kay post [2] back in 1998 where he talks about problems
> with inheritance:
>
> "Here are a few problems in the naive inheritance systems we use today:
> confusions of Taxonomy and Parentage, of Specialization and Refinement,
> of Parts and Wholes, of Semantics and Pragmatics..."
>
> Let we concentrate on broader "Objects are really hard and no-one really
> understands to this day how to do them right" claim and not merely
> inheritance, please.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
> [1] http://dosync.posterous.com/illiterate-programming
> [2]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-April/009261.html
>

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

S Krish
This note kind of ties down to this discussion.

Why does Rails , .Net : VB/ C# or Java , PHP et als succeed : Objects
vs code pattern.. ( not design pattern ).

 Pattern matched copying of code to get an app constructed/
maintained/ extended.

 What I mean is people learn/ work mostly by pattern they pick up and
accumulate as much is necessary for them to go exploring. They really
do not go debugging deep and wide.

 Example: Let us say in VB/ C# or Rails ; you have read how doing
steps 1, 2 , 3 and using a pattern of macro's helps get this function
done.. they get it going fast by copying , modifying bits/ ids/ etc
here n there.. Barely few I have met in C# / .Net / PHP world who
really know its deep internals as one imagines Smalltalkers need to
know of Smalltalk base.

  So when they want something else like how to have a Dataset
connected with a DB table and do CRUD.. they pick an example , modify
by patterns... and get it going. They do not spend time debugging and
knowing whats inside the various classes, its "Object" / "Class"
etc..

  But in Smalltalk, I believe as it exists, it is certainly not that
"friendly" or dumbed down for people to simply pattern match.. You
need to be innured in browse hierarchy, senders, implementors,
references, understand the methods/ messages .. the whole wiring of
"Objects"...

  Java claims and is certainly better than this lot.. but with its
XML, struts, templates, even the HTML programming is actually lot
easier than Seaside with the need to do Object oriented server side
code even for the HTML .. easy for many of us.. but I realize really
hard to grok from most of the milling crowd.

  Easier there of to deploy less experienced/ junior programmers in
more divided modules of work...  not that we cannot have it in
Smalltalk, just that much harder..

  I  believe to hit it viral, you do need the Rails kind of appeal,
even the PHP .. macro's ; pattern matched code / ability to quickly
scale from copy-paste pattern matched code, wizards that get you up
and running for small / medium apps.

 Leave the higher order/ comprehension / framework construction to
those who do.. but if we can make the entry barrier really low to work
with Smalltalk without OOPs baggage.. it might surprise all of us how
many could flock in..

  This will easily graft people in and then push their need to really
dig in, and go up the value chain. Of course the primary motive that
hits is making money in what they do.. !

  That really begs the point here.. most of such programmers really do
not try understand "Objects" as in OOPs with the construct of
metaclass/ behavior/MessageSend/ ClassDescription/.. etc .. they just
do with what is a pattern of code either as stmts or methods that they
see/ copy / run.. rather than worry about correct composition -
hierarchy - indirection even simple stuff like double dispatch.. et
als.

  Of course its a grey band .. so many are in the 70% range of the
gray band.. but few really do try and understand the OOPs internals
deep down.. Debugging / inspection is not wired in.. either

On 2/27/12, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Just to conclude this topic: there is a nice talk between Dave Thomas
> (of OTI fame where IBM VisualAge Smalltalk and nowadays VA Smalltalk
> came out), James Robertson and David Buck in recent Independent
> Misinterpretations:
>
>    IM 67: Have Objects Failed Us?
>    http://www.jarober.com/blog/blogView?entry=3507708198
>
> What I like is a discussion about OO vs. relational world and ORM in the
> second half, which is also by my opinion the reason why OO didn't
> succeed more as it did, and why is considered hard for most of
> developers until our days.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
>
> S, Janko Mivšek piše:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Again one interesting topic for this weekend to discuss. David Nolen, a
>> Lisp and JavaScript guy posted in his blog an article titled Illiterate
>> Programming [1] where he said:
>>
>> "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a
>> programming language originally designed to scale from children to
>> adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands
>> to this day how to do them right...."
>>
>> He links to Alan Kay post [2] back in 1998 where he talks about problems
>> with inheritance:
>>
>> "Here are a few problems in the naive inheritance systems we use today:
>> confusions of Taxonomy and Parentage, of Specialization and Refinement,
>> of Parts and Wholes, of Semantics and Pragmatics..."
>>
>> Let we concentrate on broader "Objects are really hard and no-one really
>> understands to this day how to do them right" claim and not merely
>> inheritance, please.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Janko
>>
>> [1] http://dosync.posterous.com/illiterate-programming
>> [2]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-April/009261.html
>>
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> Aida/Web
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> http://www.aidaweb.si
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

FDominicus
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi guys,
>
> Just to conclude this topic: there is a nice talk between Dave Thomas
> (of OTI fame where IBM VisualAge Smalltalk and nowadays VA Smalltalk
> came out), James Robertson and David Buck in recent Independent
> Misinterpretations:
>
>    IM 67: Have Objects Failed Us?
>    http://www.jarober.com/blog/blogView?entry=3507708198
>
> What I like is a discussion about OO vs. relational world and ORM in the
> second half, which is also by my opinion the reason why OO didn't
> succeed more as it did, and why is considered hard for most of
> developers until our days.
I thin OO has clearly won hands down. Look in every languages these
days. There are classes and objects. Even in the "main-stream" languages
like C#, and  Java it's  not a question whether OO  but only how. There
are still things lacking. That are blocks (I know they wer introduced
recently in both Java and C#) but probably not  used that much. The same
is true for ORM, it's not if but how it's done. I for  my part see the
biggest mistakte  in  doing that. Yes one can it make work, but it's
always a break and/or one is not using OO as it was meant to be used.

Since ages we get promised that OODBS or the like are the future but
what do you really have key/value pairs (that's since the good ole
Berkeley DB times) now the DBs got the name NoSQL, but in the end the
complete IT infrastructure relies and is build on RDBs (maybe with some
O extension in it. I guess therefor we'll be stuck with new approaches
to persistence through RDBs. Some will work under certain limits and
others's won't. And I don't think it's considered hard to do OO with
Smalltalk, Ruby etc. It is hard for C++ because this is a language full
of rites and that's makes it look that hard. Just remember the big hype
around Talingent? Now what's left of it.

Regards
Friedrich

--
Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim
Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Andreas Wacknitz

Am 27.02.2012 um 15:05 schrieb Friedrich Dominicus:

> Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Just to conclude this topic: there is a nice talk between Dave Thomas
>> (of OTI fame where IBM VisualAge Smalltalk and nowadays VA Smalltalk
>> came out), James Robertson and David Buck in recent Independent
>> Misinterpretations:
>>
>>   IM 67: Have Objects Failed Us?
>>   http://www.jarober.com/blog/blogView?entry=3507708198
>>
>> What I like is a discussion about OO vs. relational world and ORM in the
>> second half, which is also by my opinion the reason why OO didn't
>> succeed more as it did, and why is considered hard for most of
>> developers until our days.
> I thin OO has clearly won hands down. Look in every languages these
> days. There are classes and objects. Even in the "main-stream" languages
> like C#, and  Java it's  not a question whether OO  but only how. There
> are still things lacking. That are blocks (I know they wer introduced
> recently in both Java and C#) but probably not  used that much. The same
> is true for ORM, it's not if but how it's done. I for  my part see the
> biggest mistakte  in  doing that. Yes one can it make work, but it's
> always a break and/or one is not using OO as it was meant to be used.
>
> Since ages we get promised that OODBS or the like are the future but
> what do you really have key/value pairs (that's since the good ole
> Berkeley DB times) now the DBs got the name NoSQL, but in the end the
> complete IT infrastructure relies and is build on RDBs (maybe with some
> O extension in it. I guess therefor we'll be stuck with new approaches
> to persistence through RDBs. Some will work under certain limits and
> others's won't. And I don't think it's considered hard to do OO with
> Smalltalk, Ruby etc. It is hard for C++ because this is a language full
> of rites and that's makes it look that hard. Just remember the big hype
> around Talingent? Now what's left of it.
>
> Regards
> Friedrich
>
> --
> Q-Software Solutions GmbH; Sitz: Bruchsal; Registergericht: Mannheim
> Registriernummer: HRB232138; Geschaeftsfuehrer: Friedrich Dominicus
>
I don't know whether OO is hard - I just think it is seldomly taught in school or university.
Typically there are just Java and C# courses nowadays...

There are two big problems in my eyes:
First, the majority of developers don't know the "real" OO and are stuck in their imperative way of thinking
(a fate that OO shares with other paradigms like functional programming).
When somebody wants to learn OO, he or she will most probably end in one of the mainstream languages,
like C#, Java and C++. The problem here is that there is only a vague description and no real definition of the term OO.

Second, what (real) OO delivers is mostly not valued in commercial environments.
Sure, everybody wants reusable, maintainable and scalable code, but only very few are willing to pay
the price for it.
In my experience you typically win a contract for the cheapest offer - quality is hard to measure and is most of the time
of lower interest and measured in funny units like lines of code or cyclomatic complexity.
As software projects are (almost always) complex, it's hard to get the requirements right. When the requirements
will be substantiated you can always add time and money to the contract :)
Customers typically cannot change the company that is working for them easily - too much time and money already spent
(and no guarantee that the next will do better).
So for an economical point of view for a software company it's better to be cheap than to be good and accurate.
Often it's even better to deliver bad solutions - they will bring more money.
To put it in other words: To my experience software development is driven by estimated costs and deadlines.
There is a saying: "Time, costs and quality - choose any two of them." But is anybody really willing to drop time or costs?

Regards
Andreas

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
12345
Loading...