Quantcast

Are Objects really hard?

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

Are Objects really hard?

Janko Mivšek
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
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Hernan Wilkinson-3
Well... functional programming is hard and not everybody really understands it... structured programming is hard and not everybody really understood it... hmm at the end, programming is hard :-)

He gives no reason about his stament nor "demonstration" of it neither... so he has a feeling, me too and a completely different one :-)




On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, 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




--
Hernán Wilkinson
Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching
Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207
email: [hidden email]
site: http://www.10Pines.com
Address: Paraguay 523, Floor 7 N, Buenos Aires, Argentina


_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Janko Mivšek
Let we remember that Smalltalk was designed for a kids, so "programming
is hard anyway" is in my opinion just too simplified answer.

While teaching new Smalltalkers I noticed that those without any
programming experience got it faster, specially comparing to those with
a relational DB experience. Who were and are still part of mainstream.

So, maybe it is better to say that established habits and mental models
in programmers heads never changed enough to get OO right?

To rephrase a bit differently: Hardly anyone is playing OO right because
OO was used too long on top of relational world and the ideas of pure OO
were forgotten and lost.

Best regards
Janko

S, Schwab,Wilhelm K piše:

> Yes, programming is hard.  It's even harder if one is poorly educated
> and not well read.  I don't expect that everyone will have Smalltalk
> experience, but I would expect someone nearing completion of a PhD in
> computer science to have at least _heard_ of Smalltalk and Alan Kay.  I
> recently met a very bright count-example to my expectation.
>
> The average programmer I meet, has no historical perspective, can't
> intelligently compare and contrast oo, structured and functional
> approaches to software implementation.  All they seem to care about is
> this or that "technology" they saw in a glossy ad.
>
> Do you recall a talk Alan gave some years back at Stanford?  He was on a
> good rant about how our computer science/engineering departments had let
> themselves be turned into Java certification mills, and ultimately
> uttered the words "what has happened to the mighty Standford?"  I was a
> little surprised at his candor (took guts) and agreed with every word he
> said.
>
> The problem is PATHETIC education and self-preparation, IMHO.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [hidden email]
> [[hidden email]] on behalf of Hernan
> Wilkinson [[hidden email]]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:42 AM
> *To:* The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> *Cc:* VWNC; [hidden email]; GNU Smalltalk;
> [hidden email]
> *Subject:* Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] Are Objects really hard?
>
> Well... functional programming is hard and not everybody really
> understands it... structured programming is hard and not everybody
> really understood it... hmm at the end, programming is hard :-)
>
> He gives no reason about his stament nor "demonstration" of it
> neither... so he has a feeling, me too and a completely different one :-)
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[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
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Hernán Wilkinson
> Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching
> Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207
> email: [hidden email]
> site: http://www.10Pines.com <http://www.10pines.com/>*
> Address: Paraguay 523, Floor 7 N, Buenos Aires, Argentina
>

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

stephane ducasse-4
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Janok

Frankly I do not care about what other people are thinking.
OOP is a success look at Java, C#.

Now let us keep our energy to build better Smalltalks.

Stef
On Feb 11, 2012, at 1:21 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
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> Aida/Web
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> http://www.aidaweb.si
>


_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Janko Mivšek
Hi Stef,

S, stephane ducasse piše:

> Frankly I do not care about what other people are thinking.
> OOP is a success look at Java, C#.
>
> Now let us keep our energy to build better Smalltalks.

Well, after hard work it is good from time to time to make a
retrospection and let our thoughts to think a bit broader, to look from
a distance to our work. To see the forest and not just trees.

So such debate from time to time is certainly refreshing and needed,
specially if it is started from a outsider's perspective. Every wise man
listen to the opinion of others. Well, of course wisely :)

In this case I see a wise thinking about weaknesses of OO and Smalltalk
and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the
newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO domain
models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above
mentioned best practices, then author's claim that  "no one really
understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid much anymore.

Best regards
Janko


> Stef
> On Feb 11, 2012, at 1:21 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
>>
>> --
>> Janko Mivšek
>> Aida/Web
>> Smalltalk Web Application Server
>> http://www.aidaweb.si
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> help-smalltalk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
>

--
Janko Mivšek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel:  01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

jarober
I agree with Hernan.  It's not Objects; it's software development in general that's hard.  Go work on a large project sometime, and witness the awesome that transpires in a large team best by *cough* process *cough*

On Feb 11, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
> S, stephane ducasse piše:
>
>> Frankly I do not care about what other people are thinking.
>> OOP is a success look at Java, C#.
>>
>> Now let us keep our energy to build better Smalltalks.
>
> Well, after hard work it is good from time to time to make a
> retrospection and let our thoughts to think a bit broader, to look from
> a distance to our work. To see the forest and not just trees.
>
> So such debate from time to time is certainly refreshing and needed,
> specially if it is started from a outsider's perspective. Every wise man
> listen to the opinion of others. Well, of course wisely :)
>
> In this case I see a wise thinking about weaknesses of OO and Smalltalk
> and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the
> newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO domain
> models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above
> mentioned best practices, then author's claim that  "no one really
> understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid much anymore.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>
>
>> Stef
>> On Feb 11, 2012, at 1:21 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> Janko Mivšek
>>> Aida/Web
>>> Smalltalk Web Application Server
>>> http://www.aidaweb.si
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> help-smalltalk mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
>>
>
> --
> Janko Mivšek
> Svetovalec za informatiko
> Eranova d.o.o.
> Ljubljana, Slovenija
> www.eranova.si
> tel:  01 514 22 55
> faks: 01 514 22 56
> gsm: 031 674 565
>

James Robertson
http://www.jarober.com
[hidden email]




_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Bob Calco
Hi everyone,


On Feb 11, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
> S, stephane ducasse piše:
>
>> Frankly I do not care about what other people are thinking.
>> OOP is a success look at Java, C#.
>>
>> Now let us keep our energy to build better Smalltalks.
>
> Well, after hard work it is good from time to time to make a
> retrospection and let our thoughts to think a bit broader, to look from
> a distance to our work. To see the forest and not just trees.
>
> So such debate from time to time is certainly refreshing and needed,
> specially if it is started from a outsider's perspective. Every wise man
> listen to the opinion of others. Well, of course wisely :)
>
> In this case I see a wise thinking about weaknesses of OO and Smalltalk
> and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the
> newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO domain
> models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above
> mentioned best practices, then author's claim that  "no one really
> understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid much anymore.
>
> Best regards
> Janko
>

As a certified noob to Smalltalk hailing from the Ruby, Delphi, .NET and Java worlds where RDBMs rule, I must say I'm amused how anyone can say Smalltalk has *failed.*

I had a funny experience when doing mainly Rails development a couple years ago. I had an interview at a PHP shop, where the main technical guru there insisted that Ruby/Rails had "failed" and wanted me to tell him why. I told him, actually, there were bugs in the early ActiveRecord API that exposed Rails to scalability problems, not the framework or design concept itself. I pointed out that if Rails failed, so did Symfony, and Django, ASP.NET MVC, and countless other copy-cat frameworks in other languages/platforms. If one measure of failure is industry adoption, then there was no way Rails failed.

And where did MVC come from? Well, we know that answer. The whole discussion is pointless. Engineers sometimes get the idea that because they or a project they were on failed that happened to be using a particular tool, the tool is a failure. At bottom, this guy was bitten by Rails and so he had a kind of vendetta against it. As if PHP is the way, the truth and the light. By the way they offered me a job anyway, but I didn't take it. :)

Some tools make certain things harder or easier.  I find Smalltalk liberating as it makes it easy to decompose hard domain problems sans all the syntactic cruft of the so-called modern languages -- which, funny enough, are constantly trying to find new and more complicated ways to express what Smalltalk has always done simply: generic collections, metadata, reflection, etc.

So, I'm going against the grain and getting into Smalltalk. I have been a bit disappointed by the state of certain libraries and the relatively small community, but I enjoy the language and feel more productive in it, so...that's what matters to me.

- Bob

 
>

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

stephane ducasse-4
>
>
> As a certified noob to Smalltalk hailing from the Ruby, Delphi, .NET and Java worlds where RDBMs rule, I must say I'm amused how anyone can say  Smalltalk has *failed.*
>
> I had a funny experience when doing mainly Rails development a couple years ago. I had an interview at a PHP shop, where the main technical guru there insisted that Ruby/Rails had "failed" and wanted me to tell him why. I told him, actually, there were bugs in the early ActiveRecord API that exposed Rails to scalability problems, not the framework or design concept itself. I pointed out that if Rails failed, so did Symfony, and Django, ASP.NET MVC, and countless other copy-cat frameworks in other languages/platforms. If one measure of failure is industry adoption, then there was no way Rails failed.
>
> And where did MVC come from? Well, we know that answer. The whole discussion is pointless. Engineers sometimes get the idea that because they or a project they were on failed that happened to be using a particular tool, the tool is a failure. At bottom, this guy was bitten by Rails and so he had a kind of vendetta against it. As if PHP is the way, the truth and the light. By the way they offered me a job anyway, but I didn't take it. :)
>
> Some tools make certain things harder or easier.  I find Smalltalk liberating as it makes it easy to decompose hard domain problems sans all the syntactic cruft of the so-called modern languages -- which, funny enough, are constantly trying to find new and more complicated ways to express what Smalltalk has always done simply: generic collections, metadata, reflection, etc.
>
> So, I'm going against the grain and getting into Smalltalk. I have been a bit disappointed by the state of certain libraries and the relatively small community, but I enjoy the language and feel more productive in it, so...that's what matters to me.

Thanks bob
We are trying to improve on that front, but this is a battle of every moment. Now everybody can have an impact.
Join and help us building better libraries.

Stef

http://www.pharo-project.org
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
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
Milan zdravo!

S, Milan Mimica piše:

> Janko Mivšek
>
>     In this case I see a wise thinking about weaknesses of OO and Smalltalk
>     and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the
>     newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO domain
>     models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above
>     mentioned best practices, then author's claim that  "no one really
>     understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid much
>     anymore.

> There are many books written on OO domain modeling and there is so much
> knowledge floating around.

Can you and others list some of those books and other useful resources?
Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical?

Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites.

Best regards
Janko

> The claim that no one understands OO it just
> so stupid that it's not worth citing it. I for one do know how do it
> right, in any language. You don't even need an OO laguage. It has
> nothing do to with Smalltalk. It's about how you model real-life
> problems in code. I find it easy, straightforward and natural.
>
> --
> Milan Mimica
> http://sparklet.sf.net

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Janko Mivšek
S, Milan Mimica piše:

>     Can you and others list some of those books and other useful resources?
>     Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical?
>
>     Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites.

> Martin Fowler is my favorite. But there is a whole history of it,
> starting from GOF, or Christopher Alexander if you want. Again, it has
> nothing to do with Smalltalk in particular. You can do crappy
> architecture in Smalltalk just like you can in Java or C++.

I see many UML books around, so what is a state of UML modeling for
domain models in Smalltalk? Is anyone using it?

I have a feeling that Smalltalkers tend to avoid UML because of
complexity (it is complex, true), but it can be used pragmatically and
tailored to our use. Visualworks for instance have an nice UML class
editor called ADvance (see an example [1]), but it seems hardly anyone
use it.

At least class diagrams are very useful for documenting the domain
model. Just code is not enough. We are very weak here and maybe this is
a reason why people find Smalltalk hard. Because they are lost in all
that code, without any higher level picture.

Janko

[1] http://www.aidaweb.si/party-framework
--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Steffen Märcker
Hi,

actually I've used ADvance only once when I had to document a project. But  
to do this, I had to ask here for a fix to get it working in a current VW  
release. Has ADvance been updated meanwhile to run in recent version?
Personally, I've never missed modeling in UML while working on my VW  
applications / libraries. But when the class diagram view was part of the  
RB, I often had a look at it.
On the other, I had to read and process XMI files from MagicDrawUML for a  
project. I extracted class and object specifications, generated ST code  
(namespaces, classes, methods) and did some basic analysis on the results.  
Beside the fact that XMI feels quite cumbersome, it was not too hard a  
job. (In fact this task has been the reason to build SimpleXO.) It might  
be interesting to extend this idea to have some basic round trip  
capabilities.

Just me 2 cents,
Steffen




Am 12.02.2012, 14:51 Uhr, schrieb Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:

> S, Milan Mimica piše:
>
>>     Can you and others list some of those books and other useful  
>> resources?
>>     Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical?
>>
>>     Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites.
>
>> Martin Fowler is my favorite. But there is a whole history of it,
>> starting from GOF, or Christopher Alexander if you want. Again, it has
>> nothing to do with Smalltalk in particular. You can do crappy
>> architecture in Smalltalk just like you can in Java or C++.
>
> I see many UML books around, so what is a state of UML modeling for
> domain models in Smalltalk? Is anyone using it?
>
> I have a feeling that Smalltalkers tend to avoid UML because of
> complexity (it is complex, true), but it can be used pragmatically and
> tailored to our use. Visualworks for instance have an nice UML class
> editor called ADvance (see an example [1]), but it seems hardly anyone
> use it.
>
> At least class diagrams are very useful for documenting the domain
> model. Just code is not enough. We are very weak here and maybe this is
> a reason why people find Smalltalk hard. Because they are lost in all
> that code, without any higher level picture.
>
> Janko
>
> [1] http://www.aidaweb.si/party-framework
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

Shyam Sundaresan
In reply to this post by Janko Mivšek
Well, programming in any language is hard, because beside, languages and technologies apart,  being an IT man, you have to be the patient ,  unthanked  "baby sitter  equivalent"  presiding over  complex industrial and business processes encompassing roles  at random from a worker to CEO, passing through that of the budget conscious and technology phobic CFO.

If we talk about just ONE aspect (technological) of it, then, as an ex-CIO for over 20 years, I can vouch that Smalltalk delivers some historical firsts not YET achieved by others in the 30 years of catch up (and copying ) game. In particular, I liked this passed on to me by Giorgio Ferraris.

http://openskills.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-looks-at-smalltalk.html

Smalltalk  failed ? mmm..Depends. That is like saying classical music has failed. Mozart and Bach are still (like many able Smalltalk veterans around), live and kicking. 

Objects are hard? mmmm...Depends. ALL modern languages are ostensibly object oriented. But only "Small Talkers", it appears are doing programming with a certain religious fervor; This is the happy problem with Smalltalk: The  veteran smalltalkers are so exacting in their standards that mediocre "others" (the bulk of the average talent) get intimidated and feel "left out". It is not problem of smalltalk, but good Smalltalkers do make that pedantic impression. 

Ergo.. Objects (it appears erroneously), are hard only in smalltalk! 
 
 
 
Shyam. 

 Shyam Sundaresan
<a href="tel:%2B39%20335%2074%2039%20444" value="+393357439444" target="_blank">+39 335 74 39 444


 
 

2012/2/11 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>
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
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc



--





_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

skrish
I prefer Stephane D. and the Pharo communities, do not talk about it but do it approach for Pharo.

Moot point is not understanding "Object", but be able to deliver application that earns dollars.. ! But make it easy for users in a platform to not only understand it but create applications with lesser cost each passing year, not add to maintenance.. 

Smalltalk as a language/ platform is great, classic et al. But do we have a free as in MIT / Apache Licensed Smalltalk variant which will work seamlessly for a 200+ team of developers who are generally less experienced casual programmers. I do not want to push the list of stuff "Pharo" as the only variant I believe that can hit this goal, needs to do and achieve. Enterprise has lots of compulsions, which seems to be well understood finally by one Smalltalk variant after 35 yrs of evolution, shred of possible marketing disasters, intellectual overload.

All of us can contribute to that vision laid out by Pharo Foundation to achieve it in the next 1 - 3 yrs and then gloat over "Smalltalk" capabilities. Else we may perhaps remain stranded in our own island of isolation..

I for one am greatly enthused by the availability and potential of Pharo for the future, greatly though hampered in contributing to it more effectively to it.

Let us have another 100,000 applications in Smalltalk ( Pharo ..or any)  freeware/ paywares like the Jenkins, Smalltalk Fabric, Websphere, etc.. even if uses a backend of other technologies, plug and play with everything from Java, C and others as required in performant but most importantly in easy to create and deploy manner.

Someone is enthused enough to create a great successful company like Google, Facebook, Twitter out of Pharo.. and fervently hope 3DICC takes forward Teleplace in the rightfully deserved manner.. 

...  As Robert Frost puts it: "Miles to go before we gloat."

I do not want to talk about it, but profit from it.. everyone in the community should feel a winner in every aspect like Steve Jobs did for Apple.. does any user care if iPad is built with Objects or not.. but its Marketplace has made many profit from it. and spread the gospel of ObjectiveC.. ! But I do agree that you have do the HUGE effort in doing it right behind the scene, no shoddy imperfections we see out of the iPad clones and me too Android Marketplace.

I dream of future, Smalltalk has a huge capital success like these each passing year..



2012/2/14 Shyam Sundaresan (Personal) <[hidden email]>
Well, programming in any language is hard, because beside, languages and technologies apart,  being an IT man, you have to be the patient ,  unthanked  "baby sitter  equivalent"  presiding over  complex industrial and business processes encompassing roles  at random from a worker to CEO, passing through that of the budget conscious and technology phobic CFO.

If we talk about just ONE aspect (technological) of it, then, as an ex-CIO for over 20 years, I can vouch that Smalltalk delivers some historical firsts not YET achieved by others in the 30 years of catch up (and copying ) game. In particular, I liked this passed on to me by Giorgio Ferraris.

http://openskills.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-looks-at-smalltalk.html

Smalltalk  failed ? mmm..Depends. That is like saying classical music has failed. Mozart and Bach are still (like many able Smalltalk veterans around), live and kicking. 

Objects are hard? mmmm...Depends. ALL modern languages are ostensibly object oriented. But only "Small Talkers", it appears are doing programming with a certain religious fervor; This is the happy problem with Smalltalk: The  veteran smalltalkers are so exacting in their standards that mediocre "others" (the bulk of the average talent) get intimidated and feel "left out". It is not problem of smalltalk, but good Smalltalkers do make that pedantic impression. 

Ergo.. Objects (it appears erroneously), are hard only in smalltalk! 
 
 
 
Shyam. 

 Shyam Sundaresan
<a href="tel:%2B39%20335%2074%2039%20444" value="+393357439444" target="_blank">+39 335 74 39 444


 
 

2012/2/11 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>
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
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc



--





_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc



_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

andre
In reply to this post by Shyam Sundaresan

Am 14.02.2012 um 00:53 schrieb Shyam Sundaresan (Personal):

> The  veteran smalltalkers are so exacting in their standards that mediocre "others" (the bulk of the average talent) get intimidated and feel "left out". It is not problem of smalltalk, but good Smalltalkers do make that pedantic impression.

I don't think so. According to my experience, the opposite is true. New talents are rather fascinated and attracted by the religious attitudes of the Smalltalk community. I still have no problems getting the full attention of any non-Smalltalker within minutes.

Their major concern is they can't see how to accomplish with Smalltalk the things they want to do today. Smalltalk has become a business, services and datbase focussed platform with a legacy touch, that can not compete with state-of-the-art desktop and mobile applications anymore. It still has its place in the backend market, but that is a rather hidden place.

I have no doubt that, if Smalltalk was put side by side with Ruby and Java on the XCode platform, it would succeed in the long term.

Andre


_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Are Objects really hard?

stephane ducasse-4
In reply to this post by skrish
YEAHHHHHHHH!
I LOVE THAT!

On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Sudhakar Krishnamachari wrote:

> I prefer Stephane D. and the Pharo communities, do not talk about it but do it approach for Pharo.
>
> Moot point is not understanding "Object", but be able to deliver application that earns dollars.. ! But make it easy for users in a platform to not only understand it but create applications with lesser cost each passing year, not add to maintenance..
>
> Smalltalk as a language/ platform is great, classic et al. But do we have a free as in MIT / Apache Licensed Smalltalk variant which will work seamlessly for a 200+ team of developers who are generally less experienced casual programmers. I do not want to push the list of stuff "Pharo" as the only variant I believe that can hit this goal, needs to do and achieve. Enterprise has lots of compulsions, which seems to be well understood finally by one Smalltalk variant after 35 yrs of evolution, shred of possible marketing disasters, intellectual overload.
>
> All of us can contribute to that vision laid out by Pharo Foundation to achieve it in the next 1 - 3 yrs and then gloat over "Smalltalk" capabilities. Else we may perhaps remain stranded in our own island of isolation..
>
> I for one am greatly enthused by the availability and potential of Pharo for the future, greatly though hampered in contributing to it more effectively to it.
>
> Let us have another 100,000 applications in Smalltalk ( Pharo ..or any)  freeware/ paywares like the Jenkins, Smalltalk Fabric, Websphere, etc.. even if uses a backend of other technologies, plug and play with everything from Java, C and others as required in performant but most importantly in easy to create and deploy manner.
>
> Someone is enthused enough to create a great successful company like Google, Facebook, Twitter out of Pharo.. and fervently hope 3DICC takes forward Teleplace in the rightfully deserved manner..
>
> ...  As Robert Frost puts it: "Miles to go before we gloat."
>
> I do not want to talk about it, but profit from it.. everyone in the community should feel a winner in every aspect like Steve Jobs did for Apple.. does any user care if iPad is built with Objects or not.. but its Marketplace has made many profit from it. and spread the gospel of ObjectiveC.. ! But I do agree that you have do the HUGE effort in doing it right behind the scene, no shoddy imperfections we see out of the iPad clones and me too Android Marketplace.
>
> I dream of future, Smalltalk has a huge capital success like these each passing year..
>
>
>
> 2012/2/14 Shyam Sundaresan (Personal) <[hidden email]>
> Well, programming in any language is hard, because beside, languages and technologies apart,  being an IT man, you have to be the patient ,  unthanked  "baby sitter  equivalent"  presiding over  complex industrial and business processes encompassing roles  at random from a worker to CEO, passing through that of the budget conscious and technology phobic CFO.
>
> If we talk about just ONE aspect (technological) of it, then, as an ex-CIO for over 20 years, I can vouch that Smalltalk delivers some historical firsts not YET achieved by others in the 30 years of catch up (and copying ) game. In particular, I liked this passed on to me by Giorgio Ferraris.
>
> http://openskills.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-looks-at-smalltalk.html
>
> Smalltalk  failed ? mmm..Depends. That is like saying classical music has failed. Mozart and Bach are still (like many able Smalltalk veterans around), live and kicking.
>
> Objects are hard? mmmm...Depends. ALL modern languages are ostensibly object oriented. But only "Small Talkers", it appears are doing programming with a certain religious fervor; This is the happy problem with Smalltalk: The  veteran smalltalkers are so exacting in their standards that mediocre "others" (the bulk of the average talent) get intimidated and feel "left out". It is not problem of smalltalk, but good Smalltalkers do make that pedantic impression.
>
> Ergo.. Objects (it appears erroneously), are hard only in smalltalk!
>  
>  
>  
> Shyam.
>
>  Shyam Sundaresan
> +39 335 74 39 444
>
> My LinkedIn Profile
>
>  
>  
>
> 2012/2/11 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> vwnc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwnc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwnc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc


_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
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

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
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
_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pharo-project] 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
>
>

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Pharo-project] Are Objects really hard?

Shyam Sundaresan
I have just successfully, completely on my own,  starting from scratch, without knowing really  much of  Smalltalk,  a small but relatively complex work. Interesting was the remark of my friend (a .NET guy) who followed me in this project : "Finally, I understand .NET too".
 
For the first time, after 27 years,  after shunning any product that forces one  to work inside a closed development  (please, I am a Unix terminal guy... very comfortable only  vi, make, grep awk, shell scripts and the lot...), I was pleasantly surprised. This development environment really delivers, from refactoring to searching objects ...  I never had this temptation to exit .  But I strongly suspect that this concept of working and modifying a  'living organism' can be appreciated and exploited only when someone open heartedly  embraces Objects (as intended by the original implementors) without any qualms.
  
Yes, there are lots of, shall we say, aspects,  that bar easy entry to this world.  Firstly, it is plain different. But that is surmountable.    I think the way Smalltalk is packaged today, it is too much smart-guy friendly.  This is no place for the mediocre. To be productive, one has to know how the living organism works (tough for mediocre guys, easy for smart guys), has to connect the parts to make a whole (again notions that cannot be easily  grasped by the small, impatient minds), can make up for the lack of authoritative reference documentation meandering through the object hierarchies..which the environment so elegantly allows you to.  In any place intelligence is a gain, but in smalltalk, it  starts becoming a pre-requisite. 
 
In other words,   Smalltalk look  infinitely flexible (and productive) if one has infinite time and infinite brains. It is not a defect, and it could be welcome...but in today's world, where   both level and scale of projects and programmers are much lower than that of the 1970/80s... the golden era of computer science..., Objects now start looking more difficult. But it is not a problem of Objects.. they have not changed in these years... it is the level of audience and "use once and throw" nature of projects PLUS the fact that  today everyone is doing objects!

So I agree that something has to be done to address this issue..But  whether Objects deliver or not is the issue ?

Humbly, 

Shyam.


  
 
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:45 PM, S Krish <[hidden email]> wrote:
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
>
>

_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc



--
Shyam Sundaresan
+39 335 74 39 444





_______________________________________________
vwnc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc
Loading...