happy and bold new year
Locked
 
|
Happy New Year, everyone!
Over the last year, I went through a rather extensive tour and I directly exposed Moose, GT and Pharo to some 2000+ technical people through various sessions and trainings at conferences and companies. The tour will continue this year. Most of the sessions are not directly about Moose, GT or Pharo, but about broader topics that are served through what we do around here. These topics can relate to solving problems without reading code, to steering agile architecture, or more recently, to even broader topics like software environmentalism. If you are wondering what software environmentalism is, please take a look at this talk: https://youtu.be/N3l3eB62oSw?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA I now have the confirmation that there is a whole space which is unaddressed by mainstream technologies. Often people find themselves frustrated having to build their systems on top of opaque technologies with not much hope of understanding what is going on under the hood both because they do not have access to what is behind and because they are provided lack the tools to investigate. You see, developers are suppose to have the coolest job on the planet, and many of them are unhappy. This has to change, and we can do that. In a conversation I had with a highly respected researcher, after explaining how our tools allow us to work, he noted reluctantly “so, you are claiming that you are practicing a fundamentally different software engineering?”. This question took me a little by surprise because the only answer I found myself being able to provide was “yes”. I sent him this talk: https://youtu.be/XWOOJa3kEa0?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA It is strange to be in the position to tell the world that we are constructing something fundamentally better, but I really do believe that we are. I wish you a happy and bold new year! Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Every thing should have the right to be different." |
Re: happy and bold new year
|
|
Doru, Wow. I have to say that in the face of other technologies there is often the force that lures me back go them. But they do not have the same feel. This ability to understand and be able to dig down is unmatched. I was reading this mail this morning and it echoes your point pretty nicely: "I hear a lot about "seeking meaning," especially in the face of tragedy and uncertainty. But how would you know it if you tripped over it? I doubt it's like the justice's definition of pornography—I'll know it when I see it. I'd think our brief time here is about creating meaning, first and foremost for ourselves. When we have a lighted path, a goal for our journey (whether or not we reach our destination), we tend to serve a greater purpose. "Journey" comes from the French jornee which means a day, or a day's travels. It refers to our daily activity. When we we are engaged in neither meaning nor happiness, we waste our days. When we are engaged in meaning but not happiness, we are sacrificing our days. When we are engaged in high happiness but little meaning, we are in a stimulating or addictive environment. Only when we are immersed in both happiness and meaning do we create an optimal, contributing life. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to take both my meaning and happiness out of others' hands, and create them both myself".--Alan Weiss Definitely applies to our tech. Happy New Year! Phil Le 9 janv. 2017 10:31, "Tudor Girba" <[hidden email]> a écrit : Happy New Year, everyone! |
|
|
I think it applies to a lot of things especially discussions about nourishment :) Norbert
|
|
In reply to this post by Tudor Girba-2
Hello Doru,
I am curious. Yesterday I had a look to MessageBrowser, and realize I understand nothing of it. I saw there is a mix of SpecXXX, models, Navigation browser, Announcement, etc, then I knew I will have to spend a lot of time browsing (multiple window again) to understand a bit how these objects are related, and may be be able to change it in the way I want. Does the Moose & al tools could help me understand code I don't know about? Given the fact Pharo/Smalltalk are not typed makes it harder for code analysis, don't you? Happy new year to you too. Hiaire Le 09/01/2017 à 10:30, Tudor Girba a écrit : > Happy New Year, everyone! > > Over the last year, I went through a rather extensive tour and I directly exposed Moose, GT and Pharo to some 2000+ technical people through various sessions and trainings at conferences and companies. The tour will continue this year. > > Most of the sessions are not directly about Moose, GT or Pharo, but about broader topics that are served through what we do around here. These topics can relate to solving problems without reading code, to steering agile architecture, or more recently, to even broader topics like software environmentalism. If you are wondering what software environmentalism is, please take a look at this talk: > https://youtu.be/N3l3eB62oSw?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA > > I now have the confirmation that there is a whole space which is unaddressed by mainstream technologies. Often people find themselves frustrated having to build their systems on top of opaque technologies with not much hope of understanding what is going on under the hood both because they do not have access to what is behind and because they are provided lack the tools to investigate. You see, developers are suppose to have the coolest job on the planet, and many of them are unhappy. This has to change, and we can do that. > > In a conversation I had with a highly respected researcher, after explaining how our tools allow us to work, he noted reluctantly “so, you are claiming that you are practicing a fundamentally different software engineering?”. This question took me a little by surprise because the only answer I found myself being able to provide was “yes”. I sent him this talk: > https://youtu.be/XWOOJa3kEa0?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA > > It is strange to be in the position to tell the world that we are constructing something fundamentally better, but I really do believe that we are. > > I wish you a happy and bold new year! > > Cheers, > Doru > -- Dr. Geo http://drgeo.eu |
|
|
In reply to this post by philippe.back@highoctane.be
Hi Phil,
Indeed, I believe that losing site of meaning is a spectacular waste of opportunity. I often hear people arguing that it is hard to find meaning in a technology space, and as a consequence they also stop looking for it. In this situations, I tend to point people to the work of Viktor Frankl who found meaning in the Auschwitz concentration camp, and as a result he founded a whole psychology domain (logotherapy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man's_Search_for_Meaning If he could find meaning there, we certainly can do the same in the comfort of our amazingly privileged life. It is to this end that I also argue that we should bring storytelling closer to our technical reality. For example, see this slightly older talk (notice the place of Pharo in that talk, too): https://vimeo.com/131632605 Cheers, Doru > On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:11 AM, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Doru, > > Wow. > > I have to say that in the face of other technologies there is often the force that lures me back go them. But they do not have the same feel. This ability to understand and be able to dig down is unmatched. > > I was reading this mail this morning and it echoes your point pretty nicely: > "I hear a lot about "seeking meaning," especially in the face of tragedy and uncertainty. But how would you know it if you tripped over it? I doubt it's like the justice's definition of pornography—I'll know it when I see it. > I'd think our brief time here is about creating meaning, first and foremost for ourselves. When we have a lighted path, a goal for our journey (whether or not we reach our destination), we tend to serve a greater purpose. "Journey" comes from the French jornee which means a day, or a day's travels. It refers to our daily activity. > > When we we are engaged in neither meaning nor happiness, we waste our days. When we are engaged in meaning but not happiness, we are sacrificing our days. When we are engaged in high happiness but little meaning, we are in a stimulating or addictive environment. Only when we are immersed in both happiness and meaning do we create an optimal, contributing life. > > I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to take both my meaning and happiness out of others' hands, and create them both myself".--Alan Weiss > > Definitely applies to our tech. > > Happy New Year! > > > > Phil > > > > > Le 9 janv. 2017 10:31, "Tudor Girba" <[hidden email]> a écrit : > Happy New Year, everyone! > > Over the last year, I went through a rather extensive tour and I directly exposed Moose, GT and Pharo to some 2000+ technical people through various sessions and trainings at conferences and companies. The tour will continue this year. > > Most of the sessions are not directly about Moose, GT or Pharo, but about broader topics that are served through what we do around here. These topics can relate to solving problems without reading code, to steering agile architecture, or more recently, to even broader topics like software environmentalism. If you are wondering what software environmentalism is, please take a look at this talk: > https://youtu.be/N3l3eB62oSw?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA > > I now have the confirmation that there is a whole space which is unaddressed by mainstream technologies. Often people find themselves frustrated having to build their systems on top of opaque technologies with not much hope of understanding what is going on under the hood both because they do not have access to what is behind and because they are provided lack the tools to investigate. You see, developers are suppose to have the coolest job on the planet, and many of them are unhappy. This has to change, and we can do that. > > In a conversation I had with a highly respected researcher, after explaining how our tools allow us to work, he noted reluctantly “so, you are claiming that you are practicing a fundamentally different software engineering?”. This question took me a little by surprise because the only answer I found myself being able to provide was “yes”. I sent him this talk: > https://youtu.be/XWOOJa3kEa0?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA > > It is strange to be in the position to tell the world that we are constructing something fundamentally better, but I really do believe that we are. > > I wish you a happy and bold new year! > > Cheers, > Doru > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Every thing should have the right to be different." > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Some battles are better lost than fought." |
|
|
In reply to this post by HilaireFernandes
Hi Hilaire,
GT is essentially a project that takes the relevant parts of Moose and make them applicable to plain Pharo. Pharo ships with only the core tools, but the complete configuration of GT also brings with it Roassal and a couple of other goodies. There are still more interesting things in Moose, but you can get quite far with only GT. About your particular question, it’s true that Pharo does not have static types, but that does not make it harder to understand. Only different. The first thing to realize is that Pharo is not about code, but about objects. That is why my advice is to not try too long to understand Pharo code statically because this is not where the power of Pharo is. You are in a much better position to understand a system when it’s running. So, the tools that I use the most are the inspector when I need to understand structural relationships or contracts between objects, and the debugger when I need to understand some algorithmic steps. Even when I look for code structure patterns, I mostly use the inspector because it allows me to query. Then you augment these tools with custom views and you get quite far. I know this sounds abstract, but I am practicing this since several years and I still find it amazing. I tried to provide a hint of how it works in the ESUG 2016 talk. Cheers, Doru > On Jan 9, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Hilaire <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hello Doru, > > I am curious. > Yesterday I had a look to MessageBrowser, and realize I understand > nothing of it. I saw there is a mix of SpecXXX, models, Navigation > browser, Announcement, etc, then I knew I will have to spend a lot of > time browsing (multiple window again) to understand a bit how these > objects are related, and may be be able to change it in the way I want. > Does the Moose & al tools could help me understand code I don't know about? > > Given the fact Pharo/Smalltalk are not typed makes it harder for code > analysis, don't you? > > Happy new year to you too. > > Hiaire > > Le 09/01/2017 à 10:30, Tudor Girba a écrit : >> Happy New Year, everyone! >> >> Over the last year, I went through a rather extensive tour and I directly exposed Moose, GT and Pharo to some 2000+ technical people through various sessions and trainings at conferences and companies. The tour will continue this year. >> >> Most of the sessions are not directly about Moose, GT or Pharo, but about broader topics that are served through what we do around here. These topics can relate to solving problems without reading code, to steering agile architecture, or more recently, to even broader topics like software environmentalism. If you are wondering what software environmentalism is, please take a look at this talk: >> https://youtu.be/N3l3eB62oSw?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA >> >> I now have the confirmation that there is a whole space which is unaddressed by mainstream technologies. Often people find themselves frustrated having to build their systems on top of opaque technologies with not much hope of understanding what is going on under the hood both because they do not have access to what is behind and because they are provided lack the tools to investigate. You see, developers are suppose to have the coolest job on the planet, and many of them are unhappy. This has to change, and we can do that. >> >> In a conversation I had with a highly respected researcher, after explaining how our tools allow us to work, he noted reluctantly “so, you are claiming that you are practicing a fundamentally different software engineering?”. This question took me a little by surprise because the only answer I found myself being able to provide was “yes”. I sent him this talk: >> https://youtu.be/XWOOJa3kEa0?list=PLqvTNJtc942Cs9Qo4ikCGrUNtAw93Q0JA >> >> It is strange to be in the position to tell the world that we are constructing something fundamentally better, but I really do believe that we are. >> >> I wish you a happy and bold new year! >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> > > -- > Dr. Geo > http://drgeo.eu -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't." |
|
|
I know this path of understanding code while it is running (inspector or
debugger), but it is still a tedious path, and I feel Pharo is a bit under featured on that specific department, therefore my question on Moose. Hilaire Le 09/01/2017 à 15:09, Tudor Girba a écrit : > That is why my advice is to not try too long to understand Pharo code statically because this is not where the power of Pharo is. You are in a much better position to understand a system when it’s running. So, the tools that I use the most are the inspector when I need to understand structural relationships or contracts between objects, and the debugger when I need to understand some algorithmic steps. Even when I look for code structure patterns, I mostly use the inspector because it allows me to query. Then you augment these tools with custom views and you get quite far. -- Dr. Geo http://drgeo.eu |
|
|
Hi,
In my opinion, Pharo provides the strongest infrastructure for understanding a system from all technologies I have seen. So, if you say that Pharo is a bit "under featured in, then I think we are not referring to the same thing :). May I ask how you are using the inspector? For example: - do you extend the inspector? - do you construct visualizations about your system in the inspector? - do you write queries about code in the inspector? Cheers, Doru > On Jan 9, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Hilaire <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I know this path of understanding code while it is running (inspector or > debugger), but it is still a tedious path, and I feel Pharo is a bit > under featured on that specific department, therefore my question on Moose. > > Hilaire > > > > Le 09/01/2017 à 15:09, Tudor Girba a écrit : >> That is why my advice is to not try too long to understand Pharo code statically because this is not where the power of Pharo is. You are in a much better position to understand a system when it’s running. So, the tools that I use the most are the inspector when I need to understand structural relationships or contracts between objects, and the debugger when I need to understand some algorithmic steps. Even when I look for code structure patterns, I mostly use the inspector because it allows me to query. Then you augment these tools with custom views and you get quite far. > > -- > Dr. Geo > http://drgeo.eu > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "We can create beautiful models in a vacuum. But, to get them effective we have to deal with the inconvenience of reality." |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Developers
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |