Smalltalk › Gnu

Are Objects really hard?

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Janko Mivšek

Are Objects really hard?

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

Hernan Wilkinson-3

Re: [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]>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
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Janko Mivšek

Re: Are Objects really hard?

In reply to this post by 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

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

stephane ducasse-2

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

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
>

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Janko Mivšek

Re: Are Objects really hard?

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

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Janko Mivšek

Re: Are Objects really hard?

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

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Janko Mivšek

Re: Are Objects really hard?

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

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Shyam Sundaresan

Re: [vwnc] Are Objects really hard?

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
+39 335 74 39 444

My LinkedIn Profile <http://it.linkedin.com/in/shyamsundaresan>

2012/2/11 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>

--
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

andre

Re: [vwnc] Are Objects really hard?

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

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk

Hannes Hirzel

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

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

_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk