Smalltalk › Cincom › VisualWorks

Date and Timestamp comparison

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

68 messages Options

1234

Travis Griggs

Re: Pollock rant

On Jul 31, 2006, at 0:38, Steven Kelly wrote:

James Robertson wrote:

Well, this does put us in a difficult position. Pollock is still in
preview, so it doesn't get official support.

And since Wrapper is to be replaced, it hasn't received a normal level
of support for over four years now. Part of the problem is that
throughout those four years, Pollock has always been "going to be in
production in 12-18 months". Here's Sames from July 2002:

http://www.parcplace.net/list/vwnc-archive/0207/msg00091.html

So, if Pollock will go into a production release in 2 - 3 releases
(7.2 or 7.3) [as Sames said in his previous message], then that means
something on the order of 12 - 18 months before it goes into

production.

After that, it will sit side by side with the current GUI framework

for

a minimum of another 2 releases (about a year... maybe a year and a

half

if it has to go to 3 releases). Finally, the old framework will be
removed from the base image. That is in 2 to 3 years from now.

As Ralph Johnson put it, in the same thread:
http://www.parcplace.net/list/vwnc-archive/0207/msg00076.html

Think how long Cincom has been working on OpenTalk.
I predict that Pollock will take longer than has been predicted.
Also, there is a greater than 0% chance that it will never be
finished. I predict that the time from when it is first available
for use to the time when you will be unhappy if you have not converted
will be at least three years. Finally, I predict that if you hire
John Brant to do the conversion for you, it will take much less time
than you thought possible.

The best thing to come out of Pollock so far, from our industry's point
of view, is Sames' superb documentation of its progress. There's a
lovely research project for some student: go through the Pollock
releases and Sames' blog and other postings, and dissect the evolution
of a framework.

I still have high hopes for Pollock: doing it is the right decision, and
Sames is doing it according to good XP practice (although it remains to
be seen how well his interpretation of some aspects like late
optimization works in the end; certainly it's been bad news so far in
that it's stopped much early adoption).

The big question I see remaining is how long will it take Cincom to
rewrite all existing VW tools in Pollock. That was stated as a
prerequisite for removing Wrapper from the base image into the obsolete
directory, where it will remain as a loadable parcel "probably almost
forever". I predict the tool migration will also take "probably almost
forever", so to calculate the time till Wrapper is removed you need to
load AT MetaNumerics:

Steven,

I love your "way back" email machine :)

I think you hit a crux of the problem here. It's a classical chicken-n-egg/catch-22 problem. VW's killer application is itself. Until you write it itself using Pollock components, the pressure to get it all ironed out right won't come to bear. It'd all most be better to "stop" Pollock development right now, and rewrite some of the simple tools using Pollock. Take what you glean from that and make it your next Pollock development sprint. You could take some of the tools that were long in the tooth anyway and do them first. So the browser/file manager/parcel manager/settings tool are out. But some of the Store tools are definitely good candidates. The changeset tool would be great. The great question then is... has too much momentum been established with Pollock's development direction to respond to changes that such an activity might represent? I hope not. I believe Sames is pretty responsive and willing, so I'm willing to cross my fingers on it.

Travis Griggs

Objologist

"I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." - Henry David Thoreau

DISCLAIMER: This email is bound by the terms and conditions described at http://www.key.net/disclaimer.htm

Travis Griggs

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Carl Gundel

On Jul 31, 2006, at 9:03, Carl Gundel wrote:

The text editing speed has greatly improved in the last one or two releases
- I was supprised, that it is now almost what you would expect.

What kind of hardware are you using? Have you tried it on Mac OS X?

Ahh, well there you have it. :)

You're using a preview framework on a platform that is still basically in preview. You're dealing with preview squared.

Travis Griggs

Objologist

What's next, Intel Processors branded with "Apple Outside" stickers?

DISCLAIMER: This email is bound by the terms and conditions described at http://www.key.net/disclaimer.htm

Carl Gundel

Re: Pollock rant

> On Jul 31, 2006, at 9:03, Carl Gundel wrote:
>
> >> The text editing speed has greatly improved in the last one or two
> >> releases
> >> - I was supprised, that it is now almost what you would expect.
> >
> > What kind of hardware are you using? Have you tried it on Mac OS X?
>
> Ahh, well there you have it. :)
>
> You're using a preview framework on a platform that is still
> basically in preview. You're dealing with preview squared.

Well, that was the precise point of my initial post. Pollock is taking
too long to deliver.

The framework is still in preview. It was promised for production by
now. VW users were told to go ahead and use it for development at the
Pollock presentation in SIC 2005. Some of us took this seriously and
went ahead with our projects. The outcome has been unacceptable. Some
change in Cincom's policy on Pollock is needed.

I think that Cincom should do as you suggest and rewrite some of the
existing VW tools using Pollock. Any crucial bugs would be identified
and fixed to aid the internal customer. Or, they could just make this
next release cycle for Pollock a bug fixing release. Why add new
features when what is already there isn't solid/useful?

-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
http://www.libertybasic.com

Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Travis Griggs

Travis,

> The great question then is... has too much momentum been
> established with Pollock's development direction to respond to
> changes that such an activity might represent?

<sigh>

No, no such momentum is keeping us from just taking a tool here or
there and redoing 'em in Pollock. Were that the case, I dare say that
some would already be done. In fact there is an internal very basic
version of "Trippy" that Vassili worked on as a proof of concept.

The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of
them. All with a united vision on how they work together and a united
vision with regard to how they interact with the system, and more
importantly, with the user.

That project and vision exists. We are doing everything we can to get
that into the hands of our users as soon as possible.

Continuing on with the previous regimen of throwing a new tool at the
wall and MAKING it stick (like the RB, and the PDP, and the Store
tools, and on on and on) simply doesn't cut it any more.

The current situation from that has led to 4 parsers in our system.
4 ways of modifying the system. 2 sub-frameworks for dealing with Menus.

I assure you, that's just the tip of the iceberg. And to beat that
metaphor to death, we have to turn the ship before we hit and sink.
(Ok, now, go ahead and take the dead metaphor and cremate it if you
think it makes your contrary point ANY more meaningful)

But we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In a truly Robbing
Peter To Pay Paul situation, we have new Tools and Pollock with a
unified vision, conceptually coherent and complete from end to end,
and we have the crappy tools and Wrapper. Doing much of anything on
the latter takes away time from doing the former.

And before I hear for the thousandth time that "It's Just A Little
Fix -- It's Easy" I can only reply : TANSTAAFL. In my almost 6 years
as a VisualWorks engineer, I can count on only my hands things that
actually fell into that arena. And even then, much research, testing
and thinking has to be done just to verify that it IS just a little
fix and is "Easy."

We in the engineering team are moving forward. If the community
really wants us to stop, please, let us know now. It'd be a lot
easier than having to bear to read these rants. Talk about killing
morale ... <SHEESH!>

And So It Goes
Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Travis Griggs

Re: Pollock rant

On Aug 14, 2006, at 13:09, Samuel S. Shuster wrote:

Travis,

The great question then is... has too much momentum been established with Pollock's development direction to respond to changes that such an activity might represent?

<sigh>

Argh. Sames I was NOT trying to dis' you. Or demoralize you. And yet since you responded to my post, I fear that my intent backfired. I closed the message with:

"I believe Sames is pretty responsive and willing, so I'm willing to cross my fingers on it."

I was simply trying to highlight the same as you did: the difficult position you're in, and end with a vote of confidence.

Travis Griggs

Objologist

"Every institution finally perishes by an excess of its own first principle." - Lord Acton

DISCLAIMER: This email is bound by the terms and conditions described at http://www.key.net/disclaimer.htm

Rich Demers

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Isn't it obvious by now that VW engineering is under-financed and
under-staffed with perhaps inadequate control of the setting of priorities?
There's only so much that a handful of people, however talented they may be,
can accomplish in a given amount of time. No, I am not advocating a
Mongolian Hoard approach to staffing, but not enough people and money is
just that, not enough! As an occasional NC user, I realize that I have
little (no) influence in such matters, but maybe the commercial customers
could do a better job of letting VW (Cincom) management know their
expectations for engineering enhancements: schedules, levels of investments,
priorities, etc.

Regards...Rich Demers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel S. Shuster" <[hidden email]>
To: "Travis Griggs" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "VW NC" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pollock rant

> Travis,
>
>> The great question then is... has too much momentum been established
>> with Pollock's development direction to respond to changes that such an
>> activity might represent?
>
> <sigh>
>
> No, no such momentum is keeping us from just taking a tool here or there
> and redoing 'em in Pollock. Were that the case, I dare say that some
> would already be done. In fact there is an internal very basic version of
> "Trippy" that Vassili worked on as a proof of concept.
>
> The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of them.
> All with a united vision on how they work together and a united vision
> with regard to how they interact with the system, and more importantly,
> with the user.
>
> That project and vision exists. We are doing everything we can to get
> that into the hands of our users as soon as possible.
>
> Continuing on with the previous regimen of throwing a new tool at the
> wall and MAKING it stick (like the RB, and the PDP, and the Store tools,
> and on on and on) simply doesn't cut it any more.
>
> The current situation from that has led to 4 parsers in our system. 4
> ways of modifying the system. 2 sub-frameworks for dealing with Menus.
>
> I assure you, that's just the tip of the iceberg. And to beat that
> metaphor to death, we have to turn the ship before we hit and sink. (Ok,
> now, go ahead and take the dead metaphor and cremate it if you think it
> makes your contrary point ANY more meaningful)
>
> But we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In a truly Robbing
> Peter To Pay Paul situation, we have new Tools and Pollock with a unified
> vision, conceptually coherent and complete from end to end, and we have
> the crappy tools and Wrapper. Doing much of anything on the latter takes
> away time from doing the former.
>
> And before I hear for the thousandth time that "It's Just A Little Fix --
> It's Easy" I can only reply : TANSTAAFL. In my almost 6 years as a
> VisualWorks engineer, I can count on only my hands things that actually
> fell into that arena. And even then, much research, testing and thinking
> has to be done just to verify that it IS just a little fix and is "Easy."
>
> We in the engineering team are moving forward. If the community really
> wants us to stop, please, let us know now. It'd be a lot easier than
> having to bear to read these rants. Talk about killing morale ...
> <SHEESH!>
>
> And So It Goes
> Sames
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Samuel S. Shuster [|]
> VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
> Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?
>
>

Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)

RE: Pollock rant

My understanding is that some of these concerns are actually being addressed
as we speak:

http://tinyurl.com/s76bf

Cheers!

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Demers [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Samuel S. Shuster; Travis Griggs
Cc: VW NC
Subject: Re: Pollock rant

Isn't it obvious by now that VW engineering is under-financed and
under-staffed with perhaps inadequate control of the setting of priorities?
There's only so much that a handful of people, however talented they may be,

can accomplish in a given amount of time. No, I am not advocating a
Mongolian Hoard approach to staffing, but not enough people and money is
just that, not enough! As an occasional NC user, I realize that I have
little (no) influence in such matters, but maybe the commercial customers
could do a better job of letting VW (Cincom) management know their
expectations for engineering enhancements: schedules, levels of investments,

priorities, etc.

Regards...Rich Demers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel S. Shuster" <[hidden email]>
To: "Travis Griggs" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "VW NC" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pollock rant

> "Trippy" that Vassili worked on as a proof of concept.
>
> The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of them.
> All with a united vision on how they work together and a united vision
> with regard to how they interact with the system, and more importantly,
> with the user.
>
> That project and vision exists. We are doing everything we can to get
> that into the hands of our users as soon as possible.
>
> Continuing on with the previous regimen of throwing a new tool at the
> wall and MAKING it stick (like the RB, and the PDP, and the Store tools,
> and on on and on) simply doesn't cut it any more.
>
> The current situation from that has led to 4 parsers in our system. 4
> ways of modifying the system. 2 sub-frameworks for dealing with Menus.
>
> I assure you, that's just the tip of the iceberg. And to beat that
> metaphor to death, we have to turn the ship before we hit and sink. (Ok,
> now, go ahead and take the dead metaphor and cremate it if you think it
> makes your contrary point ANY more meaningful)
>
> But we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In a truly Robbing
> Peter To Pay Paul situation, we have new Tools and Pollock with a unified

> vision, conceptually coherent and complete from end to end, and we have
> the crappy tools and Wrapper. Doing much of anything on the latter takes
> away time from doing the former.
>
> And before I hear for the thousandth time that "It's Just A Little Fix --

> It's Easy" I can only reply : TANSTAAFL. In my almost 6 years as a
> VisualWorks engineer, I can count on only my hands things that actually
> fell into that arena. And even then, much research, testing and thinking
> has to be done just to verify that it IS just a little fix and is "Easy."
>
> We in the engineering team are moving forward. If the community really
> wants us to stop, please, let us know now. It'd be a lot easier than
> having to bear to read these rants. Talk about killing morale ...
> <SHEESH!>
>
> And So It Goes
> Sames
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Samuel S. Shuster [|]
> VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
> Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?
>
>

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Travis Griggs

Travis,

> Argh. Sames I was NOT trying to dis' you. Or demoralize you.

Sorry. Over the last three weeks, it's been hard for me. I haven't
been able to comment in this thread for various personal availability
reasons.

I have been reading EVERY post in this thread (as well as the one
about Documentation). Overall, the whole thing was quite demoralizing
(not yours per se)... particularly because of my inability to respond.

That said, after seeing it go by, I finally just decided to let it
go... do the Zen thing as it were. But today, with the resurgence of
the thread, I went "normal."

Which is not to say we don't hear you all, or don't take your
concerns into account. We do. More, I do... personally.

I don't want to quash communication and dialog. But I could do a
whole lot less rant.

After all, everybody knows that we're so stupid we never considered
90% of the "You Should Do This" issues. We just live in our happy
places making up crap and ignoring the consequences. Reality is for
losers.

And So It Goes
Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Dave Stevenson-2

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Rich Demers

Interestingly enough, there *is* something NC users can do. Simply use
the NC distribution for revenue-generating activities, and convert the
licenses to commercial. :)

And encourage others to do the same. :)

Dave

Rich Demers wrote:

> Isn't it obvious by now that VW engineering is under-financed and
> under-staffed with perhaps inadequate control of the setting of
> priorities? There's only so much that a handful of people, however
> talented they may be, can accomplish in a given amount of time. No, I
> am not advocating a Mongolian Hoard approach to staffing, but not enough
> people and money is just that, not enough! As an occasional NC user, I
> realize that I have little (no) influence in such matters, but maybe the
> commercial customers could do a better job of letting VW (Cincom)
> management know their expectations for engineering enhancements:
> schedules, levels of investments, priorities, etc.
>
> Regards...Rich Demers
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samuel S. Shuster"
> <[hidden email]>
> To: "Travis Griggs" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "VW NC" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Pollock rant
>
>
>> Travis,
>>
>>> The great question then is... has too much momentum been established
>>> with Pollock's development direction to respond to changes that such
>>> an activity might represent?
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> No, no such momentum is keeping us from just taking a tool here or
>> there and redoing 'em in Pollock. Were that the case, I dare say that
>> some would already be done. In fact there is an internal very basic
>> version of "Trippy" that Vassili worked on as a proof of concept.
>>
>> The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of
>> them. All with a united vision on how they work together and a united
>> vision with regard to how they interact with the system, and more
>> importantly, with the user.
>>
>> That project and vision exists. We are doing everything we can to get
>> that into the hands of our users as soon as possible.
>>
>> Continuing on with the previous regimen of throwing a new tool at the
>> wall and MAKING it stick (like the RB, and the PDP, and the Store
>> tools, and on on and on) simply doesn't cut it any more.
>>
>> The current situation from that has led to 4 parsers in our system.
>> 4 ways of modifying the system. 2 sub-frameworks for dealing with Menus.
>>
>> I assure you, that's just the tip of the iceberg. And to beat that
>> metaphor to death, we have to turn the ship before we hit and sink.
>> (Ok, now, go ahead and take the dead metaphor and cremate it if you
>> think it makes your contrary point ANY more meaningful)
>>
>> But we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In a truly Robbing
>> Peter To Pay Paul situation, we have new Tools and Pollock with a
>> unified vision, conceptually coherent and complete from end to end,
>> and we have the crappy tools and Wrapper. Doing much of anything on
>> the latter takes away time from doing the former.
>>
>> And before I hear for the thousandth time that "It's Just A Little
>> Fix -- It's Easy" I can only reply : TANSTAAFL. In my almost 6 years
>> as a VisualWorks engineer, I can count on only my hands things that
>> actually fell into that arena. And even then, much research, testing
>> and thinking has to be done just to verify that it IS just a little
>> fix and is "Easy."
>>
>> We in the engineering team are moving forward. If the community
>> really wants us to stop, please, let us know now. It'd be a lot
>> easier than having to bear to read these rants. Talk about killing
>> morale ... <SHEESH!>
>>
>> And So It Goes
>> Sames
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Samuel S. Shuster [|]
>> VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
>> Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?
>>
>>
>
>

Bruce Badger

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

On 15/08/06, Samuel S. Shuster <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of
> them. All with a united vision on how they work together and a united
> vision with regard to how they interact with the system, and more
> importantly, with the user.

<sigh> (this is the tradition, right?)

This sounds like you are proposing the kind of sweeping change project
for tools that Pollock is for the GUI framework.

One of the great strengths of Smalltalk is that is allows complex
systems to be evolved over time while still supporting existing users.
The refactoring browser and friends make this as easy as it can be.

Jim Robertson has often poked fun at people proposing to rewrite
Smalltalk systems in Java, because re-writes rarely work out as
planned or get delivered on schedule. I think Jim's point applies to
re-writes in general.

I'll note (because Sam made a big deal of the number of parsers etc)
that good practice can be introduced to a project (turning the ship)
without throwing away the existing code (abandoning the ship) and that
a trend towards good practice can be introduced to a project at any
time. Again, the refactoring browser etc are your friends.

Given that Pollock is inevitable, the suggestion that Pollock be
applied to the existing tools over time is a very sound one I think,
and one that need not excluded making cool changes when the
opportunity presents itself. As pointed out, such an approach would
give Pollock a set of users very close to home which would be a good
thing.

Please. Don't start a tools project along the lines of the Pollock
project where the tools environment I actively use stagnates while a
super-duper new one is being developed from scratch.

Sam, morale is indeed important. Please have some regard for the
morale of the pople who use VisualWorks.

Best regards,
Bruce
--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Re: Pollock rant

Bruce,

> I'll note (because Sam made a big deal of the number of parsers etc)
> that good practice can be introduced to a project (turning the ship)
> without throwing away the existing code (abandoning the ship) and that
> a trend towards good practice can be introduced to a project at any
> time. Again, the refactoring browser etc are your friends.

But one can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

FWIW, the Refactoring Browser is good. The GUI framework it builds on
top of Wrapper is, well, since a picture is said to be worth a
thousand words: http://static.flickr.com/44/142647476_9252e839b1.jpg?v=0

Seriously... Do you really believe we didn't consider that? That we
don't weigh the options and issues?

It's a good thing that the last time we met, we all went and got
"Stupid" tattooed on our foreheads.

And So It Goes
Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Michael Lucas-Smith

Re[2]: Pollock rant

Well I wasn't going to jump in to this conversation mostly because I
have a nasty case of foot-in-mouth disease when it comes to this sort
of thing - just ask Bruce.

But your tongue in cheek response to Bruce's argument somehow twigged
the wrong toggle switch in me.

In short, I total agree with Bruce on this subject. The Agile approach
would provide the following benefits:

a) You already have the 'vision', as you say, which means you're not
likely to go off on a weird tangent or sacrifice your vision for the
sake of an early full release. In fact, having your vision means
you're ready to start.

b) Release early, release often, as was done with Pollock, means that
you can get early feedback from your user base as to the direction
you're going. A big bang approach -never- works.

c) A rapid trickle of new utilities means that Pollock starts getting
exercised in anger by more than just Vassili, but your user base too.
It also boosts confidence on both sides of the fence and allows you to
start turning off some of those nasty old tools.

d) Reduce risk by tackling and proving the big issues up front and
getting feedback on those solutions from your user base.

e) Identify inconsistent areas early on instead of investing a large
amount of work/effort down a path that won't work out or your user
base doesn't like.

The truly stupid thing is you already know all of this. Agile has been
proven time and time again in the Smalltalk world and now time and
time again outside of the Smalltalk world.

Exactly when did you guys flip the lid and decide that what's best for
VisualWorks and its user base is a big-bang approach to changes?

Sorry if I sound a bit critical and harsh, I don't intend to hurt your
feelings Sam, but you're saying all the wrong things wrt to Agile
here.

Cheers,
Michael (foot in mouth) Lucas-Smith

> Bruce,

>> I'll note (because Sam made a big deal of the number of parsers etc)
>> that good practice can be introduced to a project (turning the ship)
>> without throwing away the existing code (abandoning the ship) and that
>> a trend towards good practice can be introduced to a project at any
>> time. Again, the refactoring browser etc are your friends.

> But one can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

> FWIW, the Refactoring Browser is good. The GUI framework it builds on
> top of Wrapper is, well, since a picture is said to be worth a
> thousand words:
> http://static.flickr.com/44/142647476_9252e839b1.jpg?v=0

> Seriously... Do you really believe we didn't consider that? That we
> don't weigh the options and issues?

> It's a good thing that the last time we met, we all went and got
> "Stupid" tattooed on our foreheads.

> And So It Goes
> Sames
> ______________________________________________________________________

> Samuel S. Shuster [|]
> VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
> Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Terry Raymond

RE: Re[2]: Pollock rant

Michael

Ok, tongue in cheek.

Let's see, you are trying to encourage the tool developer,
not Sames, to do several agile-like releases of the tools.
Hmm, so how does this pollock *rant* encourage him?

People are getting frustrated with the slow development of
VW and they end up taking it out on the development team.
Does that encourage the team to be more open?

Terry

===========================================================
Terry Raymond Smalltalk Professional Debug Package
Crafted Smalltalk
80 Lazywood Ln.
Tiverton, RI 02878
(401) 624-4517 [hidden email]
<http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
===========================================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lucas-Smith [mailto:michael.lucas-
> [hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:58 PM
> To: Samuel S. Shuster
> Cc: Bruce Badger; vwnc-list
> Subject: Re[2]: Pollock rant
>
> Well I wasn't going to jump in to this conversation mostly because I
> have a nasty case of foot-in-mouth disease when it comes to this sort
> of thing - just ask Bruce.
>
> But your tongue in cheek response to Bruce's argument somehow twigged
> the wrong toggle switch in me.
>
> In short, I total agree with Bruce on this subject. The Agile approach
> would provide the following benefits:
>
> a) You already have the 'vision', as you say, which means you're not
> likely to go off on a weird tangent or sacrifice your vision for the
> sake of an early full release. In fact, having your vision means
> you're ready to start.
>
> b) Release early, release often, as was done with Pollock, means that
> you can get early feedback from your user base as to the direction
> you're going. A big bang approach -never- works.
>
> c) A rapid trickle of new utilities means that Pollock starts getting
> exercised in anger by more than just Vassili, but your user base too.
> It also boosts confidence on both sides of the fence and allows you to
> start turning off some of those nasty old tools.
>
> d) Reduce risk by tackling and proving the big issues up front and
> getting feedback on those solutions from your user base.
>
> e) Identify inconsistent areas early on instead of investing a large
> amount of work/effort down a path that won't work out or your user
> base doesn't like.
>
> The truly stupid thing is you already know all of this. Agile has been
> proven time and time again in the Smalltalk world and now time and
> time again outside of the Smalltalk world.
>
> Exactly when did you guys flip the lid and decide that what's best for
> VisualWorks and its user base is a big-bang approach to changes?
>
> Sorry if I sound a bit critical and harsh, I don't intend to hurt your
> feelings Sam, but you're saying all the wrong things wrt to Agile
> here.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael (foot in mouth) Lucas-Smith
>
> > Bruce,
>
> >> I'll note (because Sam made a big deal of the number of parsers etc)
> >> that good practice can be introduced to a project (turning the ship)
> >> without throwing away the existing code (abandoning the ship) and that
> >> a trend towards good practice can be introduced to a project at any
> >> time. Again, the refactoring browser etc are your friends.
>
> > But one can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
>
> > FWIW, the Refactoring Browser is good. The GUI framework it builds on
> > top of Wrapper is, well, since a picture is said to be worth a
> > thousand words:
> > http://static.flickr.com/44/142647476_9252e839b1.jpg?v=0
>
> > Seriously... Do you really believe we didn't consider that? That we
> > don't weigh the options and issues?
>
> > It's a good thing that the last time we met, we all went and got
> > "Stupid" tattooed on our foreheads.
>
> > And So It Goes
> > Sames
> > ______________________________________________________________________
>
> > Samuel S. Shuster [|]
> > VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
> > Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)

RE: Re[2]: Pollock rant

I would tend to agree with Terry here, last thing I wish to see happen is
this list becoming a no-destination for Cincom engineers, which it may if
this trend continues for much longer. There's always private email to James
Robertson, who has been very open to various discussions on every occasion I
can recall, so it seems everyone should channel all requests (read:
complaints) through him rather than use the direct access to engineers we
are privileged (!) to have here on the list.

Cheers!

-Boris

--
+1.604.689.0322
DeepCove Labs Ltd.
4th floor 595 Howe Street
Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5

[hidden email]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This email is intended only for the persons named in the message
header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is
private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please
notify the sender and delete the entire message including any
attachments.

Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Raymond [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 4:30 PM
To: 'Michael Lucas-Smith'; 'Samuel S. Shuster'
Cc: 'Bruce Badger'; 'vwnc-list'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Pollock rant

Michael

Ok, tongue in cheek.

Let's see, you are trying to encourage the tool developer,
not Sames, to do several agile-like releases of the tools.
Hmm, so how does this pollock *rant* encourage him?

People are getting frustrated with the slow development of
VW and they end up taking it out on the development team.
Does that encourage the team to be more open?

Terry

===========================================================
Terry Raymond Smalltalk Professional Debug Package
Crafted Smalltalk
80 Lazywood Ln.
Tiverton, RI 02878
(401) 624-4517 [hidden email]
<http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
===========================================================

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Andre Schnoor

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Samuel S. Shuster wrote:
> The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of
> them. All with a united vision on how they work together and a united
> vision with regard to how they interact with the system, and more
> importantly, with the user.

Well, that's kind of a situation which usually makes me instantly suffer
panic attacs, nightmares and sweat bursts all over. Such a clear vision
can choke your breath when you realize that the huge pile of work is far
too much for a single developer.

I've had this situation a dozen times during the last three years.
Anyway, it always turned out to be only a fraction of the estimated
work, thanks to the great tools. When I thought "This will cost you
another three months of hassle", it was effectively done in a week
(requiring another week of physical recreation, however).

The real danger of this experience however lies in the seductive ease it
suggests. I often found myself kicking off a complicated
refactoring/redesign/rewrite in the middle of the night, not even
thinking it through in detail beforehand -- "it'll work out fine" (heart
rate: 160 bpm). To strengthen my motivation even more, I tend to be
ignorant regarding a backup of the stable state of development. This way
I get past the "point of no return" instantly. Eat it or die. That's how
VW spoiled my understanding of XP.

Development at the speed of thought is a great paradox: While it
instantly looks like it could kill you (and I'm sure it can), it at the
same time saves your live.

Sames, keep it up ;-)

Andre

BTW: I have no problems whatsoever, if the development image is stuffed
with a lot of redundant and maybe outdated tools - as long as they work
(and I am happy with them how they work today). Efficient and slim
deployment of the final runtime application is a far greater concern for
me.

Bruce Badger

Re: Re[2]: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Terry Raymond

On 15/08/06, Terry Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

> People are getting frustrated with the slow development of
> VW and they end up taking it out on the development team.
> Does that encourage the team to be more open?

Terry, I was more focused on encouraging the development team to start
applying Pollock to the tools and making that work available. Using
Pollock for elements of the system we all use day to day would be good
for Pollock, and one would imagine, good for the tools.

--
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/

Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Re: Re[2]: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Michael Lucas-Smith

Michael,

> a) You already have the 'vision', as you say, which means you're not
> likely to go off on a weird tangent or sacrifice your vision for the
> sake of an early full release. In fact, having your vision means
> you're ready to start.

Got that.

> b) Release early, release often, as was done with Pollock, means that
> you can get early feedback from your user base as to the direction
> you're going. A big bang approach -never- works.

Uh... Besides Pollock, we have released Announcements and
ObservedModels... Incrementally and released early, and often.

> c) A rapid trickle of new utilities means that Pollock starts getting
> exercised in anger by more than just Vassili, but your user base too.
> It also boosts confidence on both sides of the fence and allows you to
> start turning off some of those nasty old tools.

Splash is the first of these and will have early and often releases
starting with 7.5 (hopefully)

> d) Reduce risk by tackling and proving the big issues up front and
> getting feedback on those solutions from your user base.

The biggest issue anyone has for a GUI framework is to support the
extreme interactive capability of a UI Painter... i.e. Splash.

> e) Identify inconsistent areas early on instead of investing a large
> amount of work/effort down a path that won't work out or your user
> base doesn't like.

So far, no one has said that Pollock isn't that. The first project
for Tools is Splash, and we have internally found many places in
Pollock that needed to change to make my first customer, Tools, and
responded. Splash itself isn't yet up to "Make It Work", so it's not
possible to say it isn't going to do that either.

> The truly stupid thing is you already know all of this. Agile has been
> proven time and time again in the Smalltalk world and now time and
> time again outside of the Smalltalk world.
>
> Exactly when did you guys flip the lid and decide that what's best for
> VisualWorks and its user base is a big-bang approach to changes?

Exactly when did you think we went big bang?

Where is a single example that we are doing that in either GUI or Tools?

What, the fact that we keep you informed with what we are planning
for the future is some kind of secret message that we'll be doing it
in a Big Bang?

What, the fact that projects we are working on and haven't had
releases or previews, or are just in the beginning stages, that
somehow means we're going to Big Bang them?

What have we actually done in to cause you to believe we're doing that?

It's not the plan. If you've seen something that says it is, beyond
non engineering based unsupported speculation, I'd like to make sure
that any such imaginings are refuted right now.

We never have, nor do we have any plan to Big Bang anything about the
modern GUI or Tools projects. We have and always will to the extent
it is at all possible, release incrementally and often, and beg for
people to use and then review what we have done.

And So It Goes
Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Michael Lucas-Smith

Re[4]: Pollock rant

> Exactly when did you think we went big bang?

>> The issue is that the tools themselves need to be replaced. All of
>> them. All with a united vision on how they work together and a united
>> vision with regard to how they interact with the system, and more
>> importantly, with the user.

The above statement is the one that has led me and apparently several
others to believe that the strategy had/has changed to be a big bang
approach. The wording of the email that contained this suggested that
we weren't going to see any of the tools until they all fit together
perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Now, given I did rant at you harshly, I'll throw in the flip side of
my statement which I figured was probably a given. Pollock is great,
announcements are great, all of it is great. The incremental releases
have been fantastic and I personally don't suffer from the speed
issues people talk about because the way I layout is using WithStyle.

My hackles only got raised when I read in to your statements that you
were going to abandon the approach that provides the most rapid and
highest quality development.

That said, it seems that your approach to prioritisation is less
transparent than it could be. For example, you have prioritised
changes to Pollock for Splash over the issues people like Carl raise.

It's a very tricky situation to be in, that's for sure. Is there
perhaps a better way you could deploy your todo list so that we can
see what's top priority and where in the list bugs raised by people
like Carl sit?

Cheers,
Michael

Samuel S. Shuster <sames@interaccess.com>

Re: Pollock rant

In reply to this post by Andre Schnoor

Andre,

> Well, that's kind of a situation which usually makes me instantly
> suffer panic attacs, nightmares and sweat bursts all over. Such a
> clear vision can choke your breath when you realize that the huge
> pile of work is far too much for a single developer.

You hit the nail on the head. Let's just say that our vision, at the
current resource level, will take (mumble-mumble) person years to
achieve. Small steps are the only way to get there, and trying to
keep our eyes on the now, and the current step, AND the overall
future, AND keeping a constant vigil for needed direction changes...
Well, that's the part that gives me nightmares. At some point, one
just has to do it, "now, step, future, correct", and see each
incremental success (and sometimes failures) as the sign that you're
making progress, and take each as a celebration

> Development at the speed of thought is a great paradox: While it
> instantly looks like it could kill you (and I'm sure it can), it at
> the same time saves your live.

Nicely put.

And So It Goes
Sames
______________________________________________________________________

Samuel S. Shuster [|]
VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?

Isaac Gouy-2

Re: Pollock rant

--- "Samuel S. Shuster" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andre,
>
> > Well, that's kind of a situation which usually
> makes me instantly
> > suffer panic attacs, nightmares and sweat bursts
> all over. Such a
> > clear vision can choke your breath when you
> realize that the huge
> > pile of work is far too much for a single
> developer.
>
> You hit the nail on the head. Let's just say that
> our vision, at the
> current resource level, will take (mumble-mumble)
> person years to
> achieve.

Yes, that is the issue: mumble-mumble person years.

It's been years since I've felt comfortable putting
forward VW as an implementation option - too many
things in need of change, too many things in
transition, too few engineers spread thin.

That personal decision swapped unknowns for certain
pain, but certain pain neither surprises nor
disappoints :-)

What I see in the recent flurry of comments is a
mismatch in expectations. I doubt anyone would really
want to micromanage Cincom's engineering process, so
when those kind of suggestions are made I read it as
frustration pure and simple. The suggestions are just
a distorted echo of - I expected this last year, it
didn't happen and now I don't know what to expect.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

1234