Refactoring Browser - Dolphin Smalltalk XP 5.0 Standard Edition (DSE)

Peter,

This is all correct except:

> 3) At least the refactoring engine for Dolphin version 4 was ported by
> Donald and made available for free.

The Refactoring engine for Dolphin 4 was ported by us (Object Arts) at CS1
and made available for free.

Donald later constructed the UI for D4 which he made available for free. My
guess is that he, or anyone else, has not ported this free code to Dolphin 5
because the cost of DPRO which includes our own integration is not
considered unreasonable by most people.

Best regards

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message news:3f908926
> Peter,
> > In any case, I don't intend to fight with you and I also don't want to
> spell
> > out for you what exactly the capabilities of the products competing with
> > yours are.
>
> >You can do your own marketing research.
>
> Well, we've (today) done our own research with VW and can't find a way to
do
> it (and neither, it seems can Runar). I seem to remember saying that that
if
> these were no longer unique to Dolphin then it might be time to update the
> website. We will take a look at VAST and if we find that  it can in fact
do
> these in
> the native browsers then we will obviously update the site to reflect
this.
> The fact that you won't help demonstrate this seems rather childish to me.

That's okay. You can think about it what you like. Somehow, I don't think
you really believe that it is my responsibility to be spelling out for you
exactly where your marketing materials are inaccurate. In fact, I believe
that you, Object Arts, believe that you do have your own responsibility to
make sure that what you say about your products is substantially accurate.

So, if you choose to make a claim that compares your product to all other
Smalltalks, it is up to you to check out all other dialects to see if this
is in fact correct. It doesn't suffice to check out only a subset of them.
It is also not appropriate to shift the burden of proof to those who doubt
that what you stated is accurate.

It should also point out that doubting that something is the case is not at
all the same as saying that it is not the case.

> > In any case, you make an assertion about your product, someone suggests
it
> > is misleading (Umur says DSE was advertized with Refactoring Browser - I
> > personally wouldn't know),
>
> Strange that you now admit to not knowing anything about the subject that
> started this thread.

Come on Andy. I said I personally wouldn't know if 'DSE was advertized with
Refactoring Browser'. It's right up there in the section you quoted
yourself!

You are using a straw man here, and in a very transparent way at that.

> Why then, did you reply in the first place? Ah, perhaps
> it is because you have a "bee in your bonnet" about Dolphin including the
> free RB engine in a commercial product.

Perhaps it is because I have a "bee in my bonnet". I always thought it was a
smooth V6 humming there, but I could be wrong of course ;-). You have me
looking up so many words: 'aposite' (apparently 'apposite', meaning 'to the
point')), 'obtuse', 'petulantly', 'bee in your bonnet'.

But hey, Google is our friend...

Here it is... I am preoccupied or obsessed with an idea.

----
Meaning

Preoccupied or obsessed with an idea.

Origin

Thought to have come from Robert Herrick's poem, 'Mad Maid's Song', 1648.

Ah! woe is me, woe, woe is me!
Alack and well-a-day!
For pity, sir, find out that bee
Which bore my love away.

I'll seek him in your bonnet brave,
I'll seek him in your eyes;
Nay, now I think they've made his grave
I' th' bed of strawberries.
----

Okay, so now I can see that you wonder if I have a problem with the RB
engine being in a commercial product, (indeed, that I am obsessed by it).
Well, I can tell you that I have no such obsession, so you  need not worry
any further. I don't know where you would have gotten the idea in the first
place.

> IMO, your initial post was
> tantamount to
> an accusation of license fraud (which is theft, of course, and we know
> how damaging such a claim can be).

Not so. Here's what I actually said:

----
Also, I wonder how come you are releasing a tool (RB) you got for free as a
paid-for extra. What license did you acquire it under that allows you to do
that? Or am I wrong to assume that you acquired it under a license? Perhaps
you developed it yourself independently, or you actually have proof it is in
the public domain?
----

Very different from an accusation of license fraud. It is still not entirely
clear to me what your answer is to the questions I asked. You say that you
have asked permission from one of the authors for preloading the "RB" in
"the 5.0 image" (I note you didn't ask if he minded you integrating it *just
in your most expensive version*).

As it appears from your own statements, you did not preload the "RB" in "the
5.0 image", as you had asked permission to do, instead you preloaded the
refactoring engine, and added your self-developed browser integration, into
just your most expensive version.

Also, you indicated an answer only from one of the authors, none from the
other.

So, from your own words, it appears that what permission you received does
not match what you did with the product.

> However, since I then demonstrated that
> we had the authors' permission to include the RB with our product

As I showed above, what you demonstrated is not that you were given
permission to do what you did, but rather for something that you did not do.

> so I
> thought
> we might have expected a small apology but, no, it seems you have
> "forgotten"
> about that rudeness on your part.

If asking what right you have to sell/license a product with certain code
written by others in it, amounts to rudeness or even, as you said earlier,
an accusation of license fraud, then you and I live in different worlds.

Maybe this is indeed the case.

Maybe in your world, you can say what you want about your product. Then only
if someone clearly proves that it is absolutely inaccurate, you have to do
something and it is enough for you to simply change what you say in the
future. If someone asks you to justify your claims, it is okay for you to
accuse that person of rudeness and being obsessed.

[Note: I don't think you actually believe this, but you sure give the
impression that that is the way you are thinking.]

In my world, it is different. If you make a claim about your product, the
burden, when challenged, is on you to demonstrate that the claim is
justified. You don't have to prove 100% that it is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. After all, you are selling something ;-).
But you do have the burden of making sure that what you say is well-founded
and can be backed-up by evidence.

[Incidentally, I personally don't believe you need anybody's specific
permission to include any RB code in any of your products, because as far as
I am aware, the entire RB code has been placed in the public domain by its
authors. But this is just my personal belief based on the materials I have
read and the discussions I have had with people concerned with this.

You as a vendor would presumably want a stronger basis than a simple
personal belief for distributing that software. And this is what I asked you
about. I am sorry that you saw this as rude, and even as accusatory. It
wasn't meant like that at all. I am also sorry that instead of asking me if
I was accusing you of doing anything untoward, you responded as if I was. I
hope this has been cleared up now.]

> > you demonstrate that it is not misleading. If you
> > can't or won't do that, simply giving the person a refund is not enough.
> You
> > have to give what the buyer reasonably believed you were offering.
>
> This is nonsense.

Apparently to you, it is. I don't know if this is simply vendor bias or
something else. I think most customers would think it entirely reasonable
that a vendor be held to provide what he promised (provided it wasn't
clearly absurd or impossible).

In many countries the law codifies this as well (I freely grant that I don't
know about the UK - but UK law may very well not apply to many of your
overseas sales).

> How would you suggest that I "demonstrate" that the
> website is not misleading, short of posting every page to this newsgroup.

It's not difficult. First of all you need only do that for claims that are
challenged (normally in court, but the principle can be applied to newsgroup
discussions as well). The way you do it is by sharing your evidence for the
claim you made. It's really quite simple.

Of course, if you don't have a reasonable amount of evidence for something,
then you'd better not claim it in your marketing materials. This is not
difficult to do.

> Surely, even you would accept that the best way of determining this fact
is
> to ask the person who claims to have been misled to ellucidate as to why?

This is indeed something that may be relevant, but it is important not to
confuse:

1) the objective circumstance of the website being misleading or not

2) the subjective circumstance of a particular person being misled

It is not your reponsibility as a marketer/vendor to make sure that 2)
<someone is misled> does not happen, only that 1) <your website is
misleading> does not happen.

Finally, can we please be civil about this? I have nothing but the best
intentions for you as a Smalltalk vendor, and want your product to
continually improve its quality and appeal. I am not your enemy. If you feel
I need to apologize about something I said, please let me know and I will
consider it.

Best regards,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

> Regards,
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:3f91220a$[hidden email]...
> Peter,
>
> This is all correct except:
>
> > 3) At least the refactoring engine for Dolphin version 4 was ported by
> > Donald and made available for free.
>
> The Refactoring engine for Dolphin 4 was ported by us (Object Arts) at CS1
> and made available for free.

Andy,

Thanks for the information.

I seem to recall receiving a prerelease copy of Dolphin 4 from you in
England at the end of August 2000, and Camp Smalltalk 1 was in March 2000.
Did you port it to an unreleased V4 Dolphin VM and library at CS1?

Just trying to get this clear, not accusing you of anything, okay? ;-).

Also, I noticed that Dolphin 4 Value Edition was included on the latest ESUG
CD. May I assume that you have agreed to this widening of the scope of free
distribution?

If so, then if I have understood all this correctly, someone could load the
Dolphin 4 refactoring engine into DVE4 and integrate the refectorings with
the browsers, to produce a Dolphin version with integrated refactoring
support that people can play with for free, correct?

They have to accept that they are using a version that is a few years old,
but it is a much more attractive scenario than using the ancient vesion 2.1
which you had released for no-cost use earlier.

Heck, someone could even license the browser integration code for a fee ;-).

> Donald later constructed the UI for D4 which he made available for free.
My
> guess is that he, or anyone else, has not ported this free code to Dolphin
5
> because the cost of DPRO which includes our own integration is not
> considered unreasonable by most people.

I think you are probably right about that. There is also the easy, no-cost,
time-unlimited availability of the latest VisualWorks, VisualAge, Squeak and
GNU Smalltalk versions for people to explore Smalltalk with. And the latest
version of Smalltalk/X is even available at no cost for commercial use!

Because of this, people don't need to look at Dolphin for a no-cost way of
exploring Smalltalk. Still, I would like Dolphin to be a player in this
'market' as well. So, I would encourage anyone with the urge to integrate
the refactorings with the DVE4 browsers. Unless this is not permissible, of
course.

Cheers,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

> Best regards
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support
>
>

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
[snip]
> There appears to be something in the manner with which you post that makes
> it appear (to me at least) that you are trying to score points and are
just
> passing less than constructive criticism. If I am mistaken about this,
> perhaps because it is accidental, then I apologize, but you must consider
> that several other people who have replied to this thread also seem take
> issue with your manner of posting.

Andy,

Sorry, yes, I am guilty of this. In my communications on newsgroups I
typically try to shoot straight and not beat around the bush. When I have a
criticism, I often don't sugarcoat it. This is regularly mistaken as
aggressive or, as you say, less than constructive.

Often, I get responses that attack the messenger (i.e., me) and/or the way
the message is presented.
In general, this conceals an uneasiness with a perceived truth in the
message itself, which the responder does not want to acknowledge.

I accept this social mechanism, and don't try to fight it. The alternative
is to not say anything controversial, or only shrouded in such a way that it
is easy to ignore if one doesn't like the message. In that case I might just
as well not post at all.

But I like posting, I want to learn and contribute, and I am sure I have in
the past and can and will in the future. So, I intend to keep posting to
places like this one, and I will also gratefully take in any criticism,
constructive or otherwise, of my manner of doing so.

Thanks,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

P.S. I snipped a few points you made at the top of your message, seeing them
as minor compared to your final point or as not really requiring any
explanation since all the information is already there. If you want, I will
still be happy to address them.

> Andy Bower

Peter,

> > The fact that you won't help demonstrate this seems rather childish to
me.
>
> That's okay. You can think about it what you like. Somehow, I don't think
> you really believe that it is my responsibility to be spelling out for you
> exactly where your marketing materials are inaccurate. In fact, I believe
> that you, Object Arts, believe that you do have your own responsibility to
> make sure that what you say about your products is substantially accurate.

No, I don't believe it is your responsibility. However, if you were being
constructively critical (rather than just critical) you would help us find
out whether the claim is valid or not.

> So, if you choose to make a claim that compares your product to all other
> Smalltalks, it is up to you to check out all other dialects to see if this
> is in fact correct. It doesn't suffice to check out only a subset of them.
> It is also not appropriate to shift the burden of proof to those who doubt
> that what you stated is accurate.

At the time of writing (the release date of Dolphin 5 in May 2002) the claim
was accurate.

> Come on Andy. I said I personally wouldn't know if 'DSE was advertized
with
> Refactoring Browser'. It's right up there in the section you quoted
> yourself!

I don't understand. Are you saying that the section I posted:

>On the "Products" page it says: "DPRO adds these packages to those
otherwise
>available in DSE: Built-in Refactoring in all browsers. Dolphin is the
first
>Smalltalk IDE to offer these advanced tools integrated right into the base
>product."

would lead one to believe that DSE does contain the integrated RB? Look at
the page itself and tell me how it can be construed that DSE contains the
RB.

http://www.object-arts.com/Products.htm

My contention is that it does not and that, without further evidence to the
contrary, the website is *not* misleading and therefore no refund or other
sanction is necessary. However, if Umur is unhappy with his purchase for
whatever reason we will happily refund him.

> You are using a straw man here, and in a very transparent way at that.

????

> > IMO, your initial post was
> > tantamount to
> > an accusation of license fraud (which is theft, of course, and we know
> > how damaging such a claim can be).
>
> Not so. Here's what I actually said:
>
> ----
> Also, I wonder how come you are releasing a tool (RB) you got for free as
a
> paid-for extra. What license did you acquire it under that allows you to
do
> that? Or am I wrong to assume that you acquired it under a license?
Perhaps
> you developed it yourself independently, or you actually have proof it is
in
> the public domain?
> ----
>
> Very different from an accusation of license fraud.

I pointed out in another reply that I take issue with the tone of your
posts. I find the tone of the above offensive and accusatory, tantamount to
saying that we did not ask permission to include the RB engine in the
commercial version of Dolphin. Later on in this message you apologize

> It is still not entirely
> clear to me what your answer is to the questions I asked. You say that you
> have asked permission from one of the authors for preloading the "RB" in
> "the 5.0 image" (I note you didn't ask if he minded you integrating it
*just
> in your most expensive version*).
>
> As it appears from your own statements, you did not preload the "RB" in
"the
> 5.0 image", as you had asked permission to do, instead you preloaded the
> refactoring engine, and added your self-developed browser integration,
into
> just your most expensive version.
>
> Also, you indicated an answer only from one of the authors, none from the
> other.
>
> So, from your own words, it appears that what permission you received does
> not match what you did with the product.

Nonsense. What you don't seem to realize is that we have had frequently
communications with Don and John on this subject and not only by e-mail. I
merely included that snippet as an indication that we had sought permission
to preload the RB into one of the Dolphin products. You will also note that
John himself posted the following in that thread on SmaCC.

> You should be able to run a parser generated by SmaCC on any edition.
> However, to compile a parser, SmaCC uses the refactoring browser classes
> which I believe are only available in the professional edition.

Hence, it is quite plain that he is aware that the RB classes are only
preloaded by default in the Pro version ("the most expensive") of Dolphin.
Do you not think that if he was unhappy with this situation then he would
have asked us to remove it.

> Maybe in your world, you can say what you want about your product. Then
only
> if someone clearly proves that it is absolutely inaccurate, you have to do
> something and it is enough for you to simply change what you say in the
> future. If someone asks you to justify your claims, it is okay for you to
> accuse that person of rudeness and being obsessed.

Please tell me again how you have clearly proved anything. As far as I know
there are several things at issue in this thread:

1) Does the OA website mislead a prospective purchaser into thinking that
the RB is preloaded/built-in to the Standard Edition of Dolphin?

2) Is it legitimate for us to include the RB preloaded into Dolphin
Professional?

3) Is the claim that Dolphin was the *first* Smalltalk to have the RB
preloaded and integrated into the native browsers, true?

4) Is the claim that Dolphin is the only Smalltalk to have *scoped*
refactorings true?

To my mind (maybe not yours), I believe I have "proved" (as far as can be
done in a newsgroup) that the answers to items 1, 2 and 3 are No, Yes and
Yes respectively. You certainly have not demonstrated (let alone "proved")
anything else.

The only item of contention is 4) i.e. whether VAST *has* scoped
refactorings (VW does not). At the time this sentence was written April/May
2002 this statement was true. You claim that VAST now does have scoped
refactoring but are unwilling to demonstrate your knowledge on how to do it?
Therefore, once again, you have not proved anything!

> > > you demonstrate that it is not misleading. If you
> > > can't or won't do that, simply giving the person a refund is not
enough.
> > You
> > > have to give what the buyer reasonably believed you were offering.
> >
> > This is nonsense.
>
> Apparently to you, it is. I don't know if this is simply vendor bias or
> something else. I think most customers would think it entirely reasonable
> that a vendor be held to provide what he promised (provided it wasn't
> clearly absurd or impossible).

But the point is that, the customer was not unreasonably misled to believe
that DSE contains the RB. If he/she was please show me where. It seems to me
that this is crucial if you wish to further this discussion.

Note that, as far as this particular customer is concerned, the accuracy of
point 4) is not at issue since Umur actually purchased DSE which does not
contain the RB. I agree that, in general, the accuracy of the "scoped
refactorings" statement need to be validated based on up to date information
(and it will be) or we will remove the claim from the website.

> In many countries the law codifies this as well (I freely grant that I
don't
> know about the UK - but UK law may very well not apply to many of your
> overseas sales).
>
> > How would you suggest that I "demonstrate" that the
> > website is not misleading, short of posting every page to this
newsgroup.
>
> It's not difficult. First of all you need only do that for claims that are
> challenged (normally in court, but the principle can be applied to
newsgroup
> discussions as well). The way you do it is by sharing your evidence for
the
> claim you made. It's really quite simple.
>
> Of course, if you don't have a reasonable amount of evidence for
something,
> then you'd better not claim it in your marketing materials. This is not
> difficult to do.

We had plenty of evidence for all of the above claims at the time they were
written. Only point 4) above is in contention now and we will address that
ASAP with or without your help.

Regards

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support

Peter,

> I seem to recall receiving a prerelease copy of Dolphin 4 from you in
> England at the end of August 2000, and Camp Smalltalk 1 was in March 2000.
> Did you port it to an unreleased V4 Dolphin VM and library at CS1?

Ok, my mistake. The RB engine was initially ported to D3 by Blair and myself
at CS1. It is this version that is available here:

http://www.object-arts.co.uk/wiki/html/Dolphin/RefactoringBrowser.htm

The engine port to D4 was I think fairly trivial after that.

> Also, I noticed that Dolphin 4 Value Edition was included on the latest
ESUG
> CD. May I assume that you have agreed to this widening of the scope of
free
> distribution?

Hmm.. to be honest I can't quite remember giving permission for that to be
released for free on the ESUG CD. It may well be true; I will have to check.

> If so, then if I have understood all this correctly, someone could load
the
> Dolphin 4 refactoring engine into DVE4 and integrate the refectorings with
> the browsers, to produce a Dolphin version with integrated refactoring
> support that people can play with for free, correct?

Correct.

> They have to accept that they are using a version that is a few years old,
> but it is a much more attractive scenario than using the ancient vesion
2.1
> which you had released for no-cost use earlier.
>
> Heck, someone could even license the browser integration code for a fee
;-).

Absolutely.

> Because of this, people don't need to look at Dolphin for a no-cost way of
> exploring Smalltalk. Still, I would like Dolphin to be a player in this
> 'market' as well. So, I would encourage anyone with the urge to integrate
> the refactorings with the DVE4 browsers. Unless this is not permissible,
of
> course.

There is nothing to say that it is not permissible.

Andy Bower

"cstb" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...

Hi "cstb" (what is your real name?),

> > > Not only misleading, but simply untrue. Al least VisualWorks and
> > > IBM Smalltalk had these advanced tools integrated 'right into the
> > > base product' probably before there even existed an RB for Dolphin.
>
>  Hi Peter,
>
>  This may seem misleading, but only because it is true.

Sorry, I can't follow you there.

>  Nobody had the RB integrated 'right into the base'
>  before Dolphin 5.0, VW 7.0, and I'm not sure of the
>  version for VAST.
>
>  It was 'available' (except for VW 5i), but never integrated.
>  VW 7.0 *would* have been first, but I slipped that delivery
>  (for reasons unrelated) and therefore, Dolphin (@SS) was first,
>  by several weeks.

After all the discussion that has been going on about this, it seems to me
that part of the confusion arises from the phrase "integrated right into the
base product". Objects Arts, and seemingly you as well, take this to mean
effectively: "part of the base product". If that was what they meant, that's
what they should have said.

But they said "integrated right into the base product", and that's quite
different. If one files-in a file-out, installs a change set, installs a
parcel in VW or a number of applications in VisualAge, this code is as
integrated into the base product as integrated can be.

This is relevant because the phrasing chosen by OA marketing suggests that
in their product the RB is somehow available, usable in a way that competing
products don't offer, or before other products offered a similar lever of
integration.

But this is not the case. This form of usability, availability, integration,
was never unique to Dolphin. In fact, contrary to what is claimed, the RB
(Refactoring Browser) is not even in the Dolphin 5 product. The Pro version
contains the executable refactorings and integration with the Dolphin
Browsers.

> > > > Scoped refactorings directly from the UI are also available and
> > > > unique to Dolphin Smalltalk.
> > >
> > > These have been available for quite a while both in VW and IBM as
> > > well.
>
>  I believe these features were unique on the day that copy was written.

Maybe someone whould explain to me what exactly 'scoped refactorings' mean.
To me it means that we can limit which parts of the code loaded in the image
is rewritten under refactoring to some sub set (presumably our working set)
of the code loaded in the image.

Does it seem to you that this is an unreasonable way of reading the
phrasing?

IAC, both VW and VA offer this, VA even using two different mechanisms (RB
environments and Envy).

Maybe someone should explain to me what 'directly from the UI' means. To me
it means that I don't have to type any Smalltalk code, select it, and
execute it, to refactor code. Instead, I can specify my refactoring in a
dialog or window, and choose an option to execute it (or just prepare it and
ask me which changes I want to accept).

Does it seem to you that this is an unreasonable way of reading the
phrasing?

IAC, this has been available in both VW and VA for many years, probably as
long as, or almost as long as, the RB has been been available for these
dialects.

Maybe OA mean something different than I understood, this is of course
possible. I don't think it is up to me to interpret/divine what they might
have meant so that it is maximally correct, do you?

I think it is up to OA to choose a phrasing that leaves no or only minimal
room from incorrect interpretation.

After all, we are talking about marketing/sales communication here, not a
teacher/student setting or some such. OA are soliciting money from the
people to which they are making these representations about their product
and the competition. You are not suggesting that this is not a highly
relevant element in this discussion?

Read again what I wrote. I didn't refer to them paying anything. What do you
base your remark on?

Perhaps you read this into the word 'acquire'? But surely you know that one
can acquire things, including software licenses, without payment? In fact,
it might be argued that this has become the dominant scenario of acquiring
licenses.

>  As for licencing, I guess I can understand the theoretical concerns
>  here, and attribute them to a good community heart.  But before
>  blasting away at good guys in a public forum, you might do a little
>  private research (email, say) or phrase it as an honest question,
>  since you clearly don't know.

Well, in fact I think I know that it is in the public domain. I spoke about
that in another message to this thread. But the question was not what I
think I know, but what OA has to say about it.

I think, after all this talk, that the discussion might also have gone this
way:

Question:

Also, I wonder how come you are releasing a tool (RB) you got for
free as a paid-for extra. What license did you acquire it under
 that allows you to do that? Or am I wrong to assume that you
acquired it under a license? Perhaps you developed it yourself
independently, or you actually have proof it is in the public
domain?

Answer:

First of all, we don't actually include the Refactoring Browser (RB) "tool"
in any of our products. We do have the refactoring engine and the library of
predefined refactorings included in our Dolphin 5 Pro edition, and to this
we have added integration with the standard Dolphin code browsers, to
provide an optimally efficient and effective user experience.

The refactoring engine with a library of predefined refactorings (which are
the most easily ported parts of the RB system) for Dolphin version 3, 4 and
5 (all editions) can be downloaded at no cost from our website. For Dolphin
4, Donald MacQueen has created, and made available for free, integrations in
the standard Dolphin 4 browsers.

The code based on RB distributions by the RB authors has been placed by them
in the public domain, so there is no issue with using it as part of any
product. Still, we took the effort to ask them if they would like to see any
copyright notices included with any code coming from the RB, but they don't
care about that.

Object Arts developed the integration of the refactoring functionality with
the standard browsers. So this is our code and we license it only as part of
our Dolphin 5 Pro edition. IOW, it is not the refactoring functionality
itself that you get extra in Dolphin 5 Pro (you can download and install
that in any Dolphin 5 edition), but the integration of that functionality
with the browsers.

All in all, your premise that we are releasing a tool (the RB) that we got
for free as a paid-for extra, is in fact incorrect. We can see why you might
have thought that it was, because on our What's New page it says:
"Refactoring Browser available in Dolphin Professional only". But in
reality, as we explained, what is unique to Dolphin Pro is the integration
in the standard Dolphin browsers. We will update our website ASAP.

Or something like that :-).

Best regards,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

Peter,

> > Maybe in your world, you can say what you want about your product. Then
> only
> > if someone clearly proves that it is absolutely inaccurate, you have to
do
> > something and it is enough for you to simply change what you say in the
> > future. If someone asks you to justify your claims, it is okay for you
to
> > accuse that person of rudeness and being obsessed.
>
> Please tell me again how you have clearly proved anything. As far as I
know
> there are several things at issue in this thread:

Sorry just re-read this and saw that you weren't actually claiming that you
had *proved* anything. However, the analysis of the points that followed
still remains valid.

Regards

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> Peter,
>
> No, I don't believe it is your responsibility. However, if you were being
> constructively critical (rather than just critical) you would help us find
> out whether the claim is valid or not.

Andy, I am sure that is a legitimate opinion.

Are you admitting that you did not find out whether the claim was valid or
not before making it (or continuing to make it - you do realize that you
publish your website every day)? It seems to me this is central to the whole
issue.

Then, I don't even remember you asking me why I thought the claim wasn't
valid. Maybe I missed it? Instead, I do remember it being said that what I
said seemed to be wrong on all counts and that I had accused you of license
fraud.

If OA wanted my cooperation, perhaps choosing their words differently would
have been a good idea.

> > So, if you choose to make a claim that compares your product to all
other
> > Smalltalks, it is up to you to check out all other dialects to see if
this
> > is in fact correct. It doesn't suffice to check out only a subset of
them.
> > It is also not appropriate to shift the burden of proof to those who
doubt
> > that what you stated is accurate.
>
> At the time of writing (the release date of Dolphin 5 in May 2002) the
claim
> was accurate.

If you had written "scoped refactorings directly from the standard browsers
without requiring any use of a source code management system" I doubt you
would have had any doubts or challenges from me.

> > Come on Andy. I said I personally wouldn't know if 'DSE was advertized
> with
> > Refactoring Browser'. It's right up there in the section you quoted
> > yourself!
>
> I don't understand. Are you saying that

[snip-no I was not saying that]

> > You are using a straw man here, and in a very transparent way at that.
>
> ????

O dear. The straw man is this:

I said: "I personally would not know if DSE was advertized with Refactoring
Browser"

You said: "Aha, you admit that you don't know anything about the topic of
this thread" (not a literal quote)

You presented something that I had not said, nor implied (i.e., that I
admitted did not know anything about the topic of the thread), then attacked
me using it. This strategy (a fallacy) is known as a 'straw man'. The straw
man is a stand-in for the real position of your opponent, which you don't
attack, but instead you attack your opponent using another statement that
your opponent in the discussion did not make, but  that you pretend he made.

Do I really need to explain this?

> > > IMO, your initial post was
> > > tantamount to
> > > an accusation of license fraud (which is theft, of course, and we know
> > > how damaging such a claim can be).
> >
> > Not so. Here's what I actually said:
[snip]
> I pointed out in another reply that I take issue with the tone of your
> posts. I find the tone of the above offensive and accusatory, tantamount
to
> saying that we did not ask permission to include the RB engine in the
> commercial version of Dolphin. Later on in this message you apologize

Hey, there's the straw man again! What exactly do you contend I apologized
for later on in this message? Just give me the quote.

Never mind, I'll get it myself (this is turning into quite a spectacle ;-)):

----[Incidentally, I personally don't believe you need anybody's specific
permission to include any RB code in any of your products, because as far as
I am aware, the entire RB code has been placed in the public domain by its
authors. But this is just my personal belief based on the materials I have
read and the discussions I have had with people concerned with this.

You as a vendor would presumably want a stronger basis than a simple
personal belief for distributing that software. And this is what I asked you
about. I am sorry that you saw this as rude, and even as accusatory. It
wasn't meant like that at all. I am also sorry that instead of asking me if
I was accusing you of doing anything untoward, you responded as if I was. I
hope this has been cleared up now.]----

As is clear to see, I expressed regret about two things you had done (see my
question as rude and even accusatory, and respond as if I was accusing you),
and about one thing that you hadn't done (ask me if I was accusing you of
anything). It doesn't look like an apology to me, but if you want to see it
that way, you are quite welcome to do so.

[snip issue of permission to include RB functionality; I have already stated
that I personally believe you have every right to include it]

> > Maybe in your world, you can say what you want about your product. Then
> only
> > if someone clearly proves that it is absolutely inaccurate, you have to
do
> > something and it is enough for you to simply change what you say in the
> > future. If someone asks you to justify your claims, it is okay for you
to
> > accuse that person of rudeness and being obsessed.
>
> Please tell me again how you have clearly proved anything.

Come on Andy, read it again. The section above is *not in any way* about me
claiming to have clearly proved anything. I am not going to repeat the straw
man story here, because it gets boring.

In an effort to be more constructive (;-)), I will now go on to address your
very relevant points below:

> As far as I know
> there are several things at issue in this thread:
>
> 1) Does the OA website mislead a prospective purchaser into thinking that
> the RB is preloaded/built-in to the Standard Edition of Dolphin?

Well (just reading this now), it could be clearer. E.g.,

"The Value Edition does not include some of the more advanced features that
are available in the higher level products, such as refactoring tools,..."

could easily lead one to think that they are in fact available in the
'higher' versions (even though they aren't listed in the list of extras for
DSE).

Then at the Pro section is says it offers:

"Built-in Refactoring in all browsers". This makes it easy for someone who
already thought that everything above DVE included refactoring support, to
conclude that DPro has it in all browsers, not just some, or some such.

I don't think that this amounts to misleading information, and I am
absolutely sure that it wasn't intended to mislead. But there is ceratainly
room for it to be clearer, and if it had been, perhaps you would have sold a
DPro to Umur to begin with and we would not be having this whole discussion
:-).

> 2) Is it legitimate for us to include the RB preloaded into Dolphin
> Professional?

Absolutely, I have no doubt about that. But you have not preloaded the RB.
You have preloaded the refactoring engine and the refactorings, and also
your own browser integration. All of them totally legitimate. I never said,
nor intended to imply, otherwise (just to be absolutely clear).

> 3) Is the claim that Dolphin was the *first* Smalltalk to have the RB
> preloaded and integrated into the native browsers, true?

RB: no - the RB is not in there (as far as I know)

Refactoring engine and refactorings:
    preloaded - yes (as far as I know)
    integrated into the native browsers - no (the authors of MED beat you to
that for VA)

> 4) Is the claim that Dolphin is the only Smalltalk to have *scoped*
> refactorings true?

It depends what you mean. VW and VA have always had the ability to define
environments for refactorings and custom rewrites. There is a GUI for
selecting which applications, classes/metaclasses, even method categories
you want to include in your environment. It's very powerful but not as
convenient as it might have been, and a lot of people may not know about it.
I would not be surprised if DPro offered the most *convenient* scoped
refactorings around (at least before the newest versions of VW 7.x).

And in VA, because it has Envy, scoped refactorings from the standard
browser integration menus are easy even without specifiying the environment
in advance.

> To my mind (maybe not yours), I believe I have "proved" (as far as can be
> done in a newsgroup) that the answers to items 1, 2 and 3 are No, Yes and
> Yes respectively. You certainly have not demonstrated (let alone "proved")
> anything else.

Well, I didn't say that I was proving something, so that is not a big issue.
I hope you find my comments above on these precise issues useful.

> The only item of contention is 4) i.e. whether VAST *has* scoped
> refactorings (VW does not). At the time this sentence was written
April/May
> 2002 this statement was true. You claim that VAST now does have scoped
> refactoring but are unwilling to demonstrate your knowledge on how to do
it?
> Therefore, once again, you have not proved anything!

Ah well, see above and if there are still questions, ask again. I really
wonder how much experience you have with particularly VA.

> But the point is that, the customer was not unreasonably misled to believe
> that DSE contains the RB. If he/she was please show me where. It seems to
me
> that this is crucial if you wish to further this discussion.

Yes, I agree with you there. The customer can't reasonably claim to be
misled without pointing out why he believed what he said he believed about
your offering (and which later appears to be a misunderstanding).

> Note that, as far as this particular customer is concerned, the accuracy
of
> point 4) is not at issue since Umur actually purchased DSE which does not
> contain the RB. I agree that, in general, the accuracy of the "scoped
> refactorings" statement need to be validated based on up to date
information
> (and it will be) or we will remove the claim from the website.

I already provided above a more detailed description of the feature that is
accurate inasfar as my knowledge goes. But it doesn't sound nearly as good
or as uniquely useful as what you have on your website ;-).

Note that I do not usually keep informed about the features of the very
latest VW 7.x builds (although I do work with them from time to time), and
of course in general, I don't use all dialects.

> We had plenty of evidence for all of the above claims at the time they
were
> written.

You just keep repeating this, and I don't think it makes it more true.

Your wordings on the website at times have a strong element of opacity and
the unclarity resulting from that, I feel, is principally your
responsibility. I am quite aware of the tension between not using too many
words, highlighting the attractive features of a product, and being truthful
enough not to mislead.

I suppose I could ask you to produce your 'evidence' for points 3) and 4).
But I'll wait to see what your reaction is to my remarks above.

> Only point 4) above is in contention now and we will address that
> ASAP with or without your help.

I don't think that I have seen your 'evidence' for points 3) and 4). Maybe I
missed it. Otherwise, these two issues are still not at all closed.

Cheers,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

> Regards
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support

"Andy Bower" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:3f914c3d$[hidden email]...
> Peter,
>
> > > Maybe in your world, you can say what you want about your product.
Then
> > only
> > > if someone clearly proves that it is absolutely inaccurate, you have
to
> do
> > > something and it is enough for you to simply change what you say in
the
> > > future. If someone asks you to justify your claims, it is okay for you
> to
> > > accuse that person of rudeness and being obsessed.
> >
> > Please tell me again how you have clearly proved anything. As far as I
> know
> > there are several things at issue in this thread:
>
> Sorry just re-read this and saw that you weren't actually claiming that
you
> had *proved* anything. However, the analysis of the points that followed
> still remains valid.

Okay, I did respond to that in my most recent message (before I read this
message), so just ignore that part of it if you will.

Cheers,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

> Regards
>
> Andy Bower
> Dolphin Support

Peter,

> I don't think that I have seen your 'evidence' for points 3) and 4). Maybe
I
> missed it. Otherwise, these two issues are still not at all closed.

To you, maybe not. However, I don't think I need to expand further. There is
enough in this thread already to allow most readers to judge whether we have
issued misleading marketing material or whether you are just an insufferable
pedant. Or maybe the final judgement is somewhere in between.

I admit (as I did at the start of your off topic interjection into this
thread) that the statement about "scoped refactorings" may no longer be
true. Because of this (and because, honestly, the issue seems fantastically
minor to me) I have removed the offending statement from the website until
we can verify whether it is still the case.

Andy Bower
Dolphin Support

"Peter van Rooijen" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:3f912cba$0$58711$[hidden email]...
>
> [Incidentally, I personally don't believe you need anybody's specific
> permission to include any RB code in any of your products, because as far
as
> I am aware, the entire RB code has been placed in the public domain by its
> authors. But this is just my personal belief based on the materials I have
> read and the discussions I have had with people concerned with this.

The Refactoring Browser is not in the public domain. It is freely available,
but it isn't in the public domain. As far as licensing issues are concerned,
that is an issue for Object Arts and us.

As for scoped refactorings, I don't consider using the ENVY source manager
to disallow some changes supporting scoped refactorings. VW has some support
for scoped refactorings, but it provides the support in a different way.
Instead of prompting the user up front, we let the user decide what changes
should be performed at the end (assuming that they have the "Show
refactoring changes" option turned on). Using that option, one can remove
changes before they are performed.


John Brant

"John Brant" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:01gkb.586882$cF.256533@rwcrnsc53...
> "Peter van Rooijen" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
> news:3f912cba$0$58711$[hidden email]...
> >
> > [Incidentally, I personally don't believe you need anybody's specific
> > permission to include any RB code in any of your products, because as
far
> as
> > I am aware, the entire RB code has been placed in the public domain by
its
> > authors. But this is just my personal belief based on the materials I
have
> > read and the discussions I have had with people concerned with this.

Hi John, thanks for your input!

> The Refactoring Browser is not in the public domain. It is freely
available,
> but it isn't in the public domain.

Could you say a little more as to what this phrase 'freely available' means
exactly? Does it mean that no license agreement with you is required to use
the code in any fashion, for any purpose? Or are there circumstances in
which a user of your code could be stopped from using it any longer, or even
could be infringing on any IP rights?

Perhaps you could spell out the differences with "public domain", if that
seems to you to be a useful way of describing the IP situation around the
RB.

> As far as licensing issues are concerned,
> that is an issue for Object Arts and us.

I don't mean to be rude, but that depends. If I or my employer or my
supplier or a government agency in Ulan Bator uses your code (whether
included with Dolphin or not), how is that an issue for Object Arts and you?
It seems to me that anyone who uses your code or wants to use it and does
not have a specific license agreement with you, has a legitimate interest in
knowing what the IP situation is. Am I wrong about this?

> As for scoped refactorings, I don't consider using the ENVY source manager
> to disallow some changes supporting scoped refactorings.

Sure, could be. I didn't invent the term. Do you think that calling the Envy
route 'scoped refactoring' is  clearly incorrect? IAC, the Envy route is
extremely handy. I believe that scoping to a working set (rather than to a
hierarchy), is the most natural and useful basic mechanism for limiting the
scope of refactorings/rewrites.

But I can't imagine that you would say that a refactoring using the rewrite
editor with a specified environment (which is possible in both VW and VA),
would not deserve the name 'scoped refactoring'. Or would you?

In any case thanks for your remarks so far and I hope to receive more
information from you.

Regards,

Peter van Rooijen
Amsterdam

> VW has some support
> for scoped refactorings, but it provides the support in a different way.
> Instead of prompting the user up front, we let the user decide what
changes
> should be performed at the end (assuming that they have the "Show
> refactoring changes" option turned on). Using that option, one can remove
> changes before they are performed.
>
>
> John Brant

Peter,

> > Donald did do the work for free for Dolphin 4. He was just expressing
how
> > much work it was to do it. The Dolphin 5 integration was a separate
piece
> of
> > work performed by us at OA. And before you ask, no, it is not
plagiarized
> > from Donald's work.
>
> Andy, why are you so hostile? When did I ever suggest you plagiarized
> anything?

Andy is not being hostile.  Many of us in this group have known him too long
and seen him "take the high road" too many times to lose faith in him so
easily.  You might be closer than you think to creating a chorus of plonks
around the world.

Sincerely,

Bill

--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
[hidden email]

Wow, what an amazing discussion thread. I am overwhelmed.

Anyway,
     I am not in recent customers list because my employer Faris Naji (who knows nothing about Smalltalk) has got it for my use. I am planning to convert the whole IT to Dolphin in the future in www.pamgene.com.

     The misunderstanding stems from the fact that I do not spare time to read the product pages properly. Just skip read. (This disinterest partly comes from the fact that I started using Dolphin 7 years ago).

      Well, let's upgrade then. If it is a future of Dolphin Pro.

By the way, Squeak has Refactoring Browser integrated in addition to the other products discussed in this thread...

Umur

PS. We are looking for Smalltalk developers in Rotterdam or Den Bosch.

Wow, what an amazing discussion thread. I am overwhelmed.

Anyway,
     I am not in recent customers list because my employer Faris Naji (who knows nothing about Smalltalk) has got it for my use. I am planning to convert the whole IT to Dolphin in the future in www.pamgene.com.

     The misunderstanding stems from the fact that I do not spare time to read the product pages properly. Just skip read. (This disinterest partly comes from the fact that I started using Dolphin 7 years ago).

      Well, let's upgrade then. If it is a future of Dolphin Pro.

By the way, Squeak has Refactoring Browser integrated in addition to the other products discussed in this thread...

Umur

PS. We are looking for Smalltalk developers in Rotterdam or Den Bosch.