Building a string from incompatible objects.
Locked
1234
1234
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions
 
|
Peter Hatch wrote:
<snip> > David should if anything be even _more_ "arrogant" and "aggressive." > The fact is, he is in the very nice position of being able to not only > consider the technological outlook but to also *act on his opinions* > without having to battle through multiple layers of management hierarchy > (which is very much like having to wade through a tar pit...). > > Some of us have to walk a mile in order to advance 10 feet..... I was about to lament your position vis-a-vis management, but then got to considering their virtues, such as their willingness to invest heavily in a risky bet to make VisualWorks, and perhaps Object Studio, growth products, and to employ a product manager who's as strong an advocate as you could ask for, and who goes the extra mile and then some in offering his own support. Considering the management fiasco before Cincom took over, I'd say things have improved. Nevertheless, I hope they can find a way to become more nimble in this fast changing world. Have you guys tried the do it and later ask for forgiveness approach, instead of mother may I? Certainly some informal discussions with counterparts at the other Smalltalk vendors would be ok. See what ideas come, and proceed from there. I'm not advocating rebelling against management, but peeling away enough of the tar for them to see more clearly. |
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Bruce Samuelson wrote:
[snip] > I was about to lament your position vis-a-vis management, but > then got to considering their virtues, such as their willingness > to invest heavily in a risky bet to make VisualWorks, and perhaps > Object Studio, growth products, and to employ a product manager > who's as strong an advocate as you could ask for, and who goes the > extra mile and then some in offering his own support. Considering > the management fiasco before Cincom took over, I'd say things have > improved. (I know you didn't go on to bash Cincom management, but I wanted to add some praise.) Let's add: 1) Sponsering Camp Smalltalk 2 (including shelling out some fairly serious bucks, and yet CSt2 was perfectly vender neutral) 2) Releasing several bits of VisualWorks as open source (e.g., the XML framework) 3) Starting up and (thus far) keeping a release every 4 months schedule. 4) Changing the Non-commerical licence (which they inherited from ObjectShare and was just dreadful) in response to community critique. 5) Changing the education licence in response to complaints (it's still a little odd, IIRC, but still there's movement) 6) More recently, hiring a *slew* of heavyweights and turning them loose on the image (the recent tools and GUI threads bode well) 7) Sponsering the revived Smalltalk Solutions. 8) Let's not forget they run their own trade show :) I'm sure there are others good moves. The *biggest* still pending issue is pricing models. It's still the case, afaik, that the current pricing structure is unacceptable and annoying to a reasonably sized niche. It's definitely obscure and confusing. We know they're aware of this, but they're moving slow (and probably have good reason to move slow). What they've done thus far is *working* for them. They've stabilized the situation, and that was key. They make possible for people to work with VisualWorks even if you can't hook in to their pricing scheme (via the NC version). I hope they can figure out a way to serve the small developer/shareware market. (I understand that they're putting some effort into exploring what might be done with Visual Smalltalk, too.) So, Cincom has been a *huge* win, not just for VisualWorks, but for the Smalltalk community in general. They seem quite willing to listen, so it's definitely worth making proposals and suggestions. Cheers, Bijan Parsia. |
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions (was Re: Building a string from incompatible objects)
|
|
In reply to this post by Bijan Parsia-2
Bijan,
Now you are calling me testy. You seem to have the need to tag me with ucalled for negative epithtets. You directly attacked me personally simply because I disagreed with your opinions. Worse you attacked me because I disagreed with someone else's opinion. We may disagree on opinions but attacking me personally especially on behalf of someone else is not something I find amusing. I believe you should apologize. Regards, Costas |
Re: Building a string from incompatible objects.
|
|
In reply to this post by smalltalker
[hidden email] wrote in message
<[hidden email]>... >1) Is there an official way of defining Symbols in Array literals or >are both ways approved by the ANSI standard? First of all, the standard makes a distiction between Symbols and Selectors. Things like #foo are literal Selectors, #'foo' are literal Symbols. Symbols cannot be message selectors, though the standard says "some implementations" combine the two types into one. Elements of a literal array may be literals or identifiers. Literals includes both forms of Symbols, quoted and without quotes. Identifiers are the fun part. The only defined meaning is for "nil", "true" and "false", which should be resolved as in other contexts where they are pseudo-variables. The meaning of others is undefined, so strictly speaking #(foo) is not required to be an Array with symbol #foo. (Though most implementations allow it because ST-80 did). >2) Do you know why #() was chosen for Array literals in the first >place? I mean # is normally used for denoting Symbols. Is there (maybe >historically) a connection between Symbols and Arrays apart from the >fact that both are Collections which would explain the use of # in >both cases? At least VW, Dolphin and OStudio do not evaluate to true >when I execute #(1 2 3) == #(1 2 3) in a Workspace whereas #Foo == >#Foo does of course. I believe the connection is that in both cases what follows is protected from evaluation, and was most probably inspired by Lisp quote. In Lisp, 'foo creates a symbol and '(foo bar) a list of symbols. Without the quote both would still be syntactically valid expressions but with a different meaning (a variable reference and a function call), so a quote is needed in both cases to indicate that we want to treat them literally. Another interesting possible parallel is that in Lisp, quoting the list elements, as in '('foo 'bar), would produce a different result, so '(foo bar) is the only corrent way of creating a literal list with two symbols. In Smalltalk-72 this was very much the same: >foo (that ">" should really look like a hand pointing to the right) would produce a symbol, >(foo bar) a vector of symbols, and >(>foo >bar) would not be the same as >(foo bar). This could explain why the hash ended up being optional inside a literal array. My guess is only as good as anybody else's, though, except for a few people on the Squeak list. --Vassili |
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions (was Re: Building a string from incompatible objects)
|
|
In reply to this post by Costas Menico-2
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Costas Menico wrote:
> Now you are calling me testy. You seem to have the need to tag me with > ucalled for negative epithtets. This isn't testy? Ok, whatever. > You directly attacked me personally simply because I disagreed with > your opinions. This is just false. I attacked your arguments and interpretations. You continually fail to distinguish the two. >Worse you attacked me because I disagreed with someone > else's opinion. No, I said that your reading was wildly uncharitable. And it was. Demonstrate that it isn't and I'll withdraw the charge. Frankly, not only did you misread this other person, but your tone was rather snarky ("I will copyright it and no one else can use it.") > We may disagree on opinions We disagree on a lot of points, yes. > but attacking me personally Which I did not do, in any sane sense of "personal". If exposing severe errors in what you actually wrote is a personal attack, we'll get no where. I stand by my evaluations of your arguments and interpretations. > especially on > behalf of someone else is not something I find amusing. It wasn't intended to be humorous. > I believe you should apologize. Well, this is another one of those issues we disagree on. I thought you were wrong for apologizing to me for "making me feel insulted" since you did not in fact make me feel insulted. I think you are wrong for thinking I should apologize for making personal attacks on you since I didn't make any. If you weren't testy (which is *not* an insult, by the way) then I withdrawn that claim. You sure *seem* testy to me right now, but that may be a function of electronic communication. Of course, I may be *wrong* about whether I personally attacked you. But you'll have to do *much* better than just asserting that I did so. Specific quotes and pointers would be needed. (Your record in this thread of getting what other people said right is not unblemished, so the standards by which I evaluate your current claims about what other people (namely me) said is correspondingly tougher.) If you still feel aggreived, I suggest we take it to private email. Cheers, Bijan Parsia. |
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions (was Re: Building a string from incompatible objects)
|
|
I am sure people are enjoying this quibble. But for the sake of
civility can we just stop here? I am sure there are is something more productive to argue over. So let's shake hands .... Regards, Costas On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:15:20 -0500, Bijan Parsia <[hidden email]> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Costas Menico wrote: > >> Now you are calling me testy. You seem to have the need to tag me with >> ucalled for negative epithtets. > >This isn't testy? Ok, whatever. > >> You directly attacked me personally simply because I disagreed with >> your opinions. > >This is just false. I attacked your arguments and interpretations. You >continually fail to distinguish the two. > >>Worse you attacked me because I disagreed with someone >> else's opinion. > >No, I said that your reading was wildly uncharitable. And it >was. Demonstrate that it isn't and I'll withdraw the charge. > >Frankly, not only did you misread this other person, but your tone was >rather snarky ("I will copyright it and no one else can use it.") > >> We may disagree on opinions > >We disagree on a lot of points, yes. > >> but attacking me personally > >Which I did not do, in any sane sense of "personal". If exposing severe >errors in what you actually wrote is a personal attack, we'll get no >where. > >I stand by my evaluations of your arguments and interpretations. > >> especially on >> behalf of someone else is not something I find amusing. > >It wasn't intended to be humorous. > >> I believe you should apologize. > >Well, this is another one of those issues we disagree on. I thought you >were wrong for apologizing to me for "making me feel insulted" since you >did not in fact make me feel insulted. I think you are wrong for thinking >I should apologize for making personal attacks on you since I didn't make >any. > >If you weren't testy (which is *not* an insult, by the way) then I >withdrawn that claim. You sure *seem* testy to me right now, but that may >be a function of electronic communication. > >Of course, I may be *wrong* about whether I personally attacked you. But >you'll have to do *much* better than just asserting that I did >so. Specific quotes and pointers would be needed. (Your record in this >thread of getting what other people said right is not unblemished, so the >standards by which I evaluate your current claims about what other people >(namely me) said is correspondingly tougher.) > >If you still feel aggreived, I suggest we take it to private email. > >Cheers, >Bijan Parsia. > |
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions (was Re: Building a string from incompatible objects)
|
|
In reply to this post by Bijan Parsia-2
Bijan Parsia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Of course, I may be *wrong* about whether I personally attacked you. But >you'll have to do *much* better than just asserting that I did >so. Specific quotes and pointers would be needed. (Your record in this >thread of getting what other people said right is not unblemished, so the >standards by which I evaluate your current claims about what other people >(namely me) said is correspondingly tougher.) > >If you still feel aggreived, I suggest we take it to private email. Please do, I'm bored already. :-) Ian |
Re: Smalltalk Community Opinions (was Re: Building a string from incompatible objects)
|
|
In reply to this post by Costas Menico-2
At least confine this to comp.lang.smalltalk.advocacy instead of
posting it to three different smalltalk newsgroups. No insult intended - you're all nice folks - but one of the prime reasons we supported c.l.s.a was to move this stuff out of the sight of those of us who don't care. Thanks, Larry -- [hidden email] [hidden email] wrote (with possible editing): >I am sure people are enjoying this quibble. But for the sake of >civility can we just stop here? I am sure there are is something more >productive to argue over. So let's shake hands .... > >Regards, > >Costas > >On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:15:20 -0500, Bijan Parsia ><[hidden email]> wrote: > >>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Costas Menico wrote: >> >>> Now you are calling me testy. You seem to have the need to tag me with >>> ucalled for negative epithtets. >> >>This isn't testy? Ok, whatever. >> >>> You directly attacked me personally simply because I disagreed with >>> your opinions. >> >>This is just false. I attacked your arguments and interpretations. You >>continually fail to distinguish the two. >> >>>Worse you attacked me because I disagreed with someone >>> else's opinion. >> >>No, I said that your reading was wildly uncharitable. And it >>was. Demonstrate that it isn't and I'll withdraw the charge. >> >>Frankly, not only did you misread this other person, but your tone was >>rather snarky ("I will copyright it and no one else can use it.") >> >>> We may disagree on opinions >> >>We disagree on a lot of points, yes. >> >>> but attacking me personally >> >>Which I did not do, in any sane sense of "personal". If exposing severe >>errors in what you actually wrote is a personal attack, we'll get no >>where. >> >>I stand by my evaluations of your arguments and interpretations. >> >>> especially on >>> behalf of someone else is not something I find amusing. >> >>It wasn't intended to be humorous. >> >>> I believe you should apologize. >> >>Well, this is another one of those issues we disagree on. I thought you >>were wrong for apologizing to me for "making me feel insulted" since you >>did not in fact make me feel insulted. I think you are wrong for thinking >>I should apologize for making personal attacks on you since I didn't make >>any. >> >>If you weren't testy (which is *not* an insult, by the way) then I >>withdrawn that claim. You sure *seem* testy to me right now, but that may >>be a function of electronic communication. >> >>Of course, I may be *wrong* about whether I personally attacked you. But >>you'll have to do *much* better than just asserting that I did >>so. Specific quotes and pointers would be needed. (Your record in this >>thread of getting what other people said right is not unblemished, so the >>standards by which I evaluate your current claims about what other people >>(namely me) said is correspondingly tougher.) >> >>If you still feel aggreived, I suggest we take it to private email. >> >>Cheers, >>Bijan Parsia. >> |
«
Return to Dolphin Smalltalk
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |