Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:

Dear Jecel:

> But right now I have a short position (4 pages) [...]

I would suggest that in the future it might be better for you to make
the paper available somewhere on the web (you can even use for this) and then
just post the address to the list. Your file was rather large and many
people have very slow connections (some have to pay per minute or byte

Sorry, since it is so few bytes I though t there would be no problem at all!

> I would like to receive your comments
Well  to ask and respond questions, to dialogue is indeed a very
efficient way of learning, so I will try to dialogue with you and the
Selfers in this context....Freedom is fundamental...Without freedom
of expression one cannot advance....Heated discusions do not
mean one is disrespecting the other....they are trials to unravel

Yes, scientists have already shown one puts forward ideas easierly
in a reactionary environment because you have to fight against a
direction than in anarchic environments where you are allowed to do
everything but everything has the same weight and the outcome is
no discernment at all!!!  When I finished architecture in Rio de Janeiro
the course looked like what I wanted,   (previously we had
to draw by heart Egyptian tombs, the Greek orders and so on!!!)
research in  graduate studies in architecture
looked like what I wanted and it is going in the
direction I think is the right one!! To continue among architects
is hard while I do not have available a language to teach them
to program and then implement my ecodesign model!!!
For example to renew my registration as a postdoctorate researcher
here at the Department of Electronic Systems Engineering I had
to persuade 17 PhDs in Electronic Engineering that what I am
building is an intelligent electronic artifact called  " an ecobuilding"!
And of course it is cross-, multi and transdisciplinary!! The
parts concerned with architecture were already developed in
architectural schools!!!

You presented a very large number of analogies, but no concrete advice
at all.

First of all it is a position paper!!!! Soon there will be available a
Scientific Report with 200 pages!!!

That might be appropriate if the presentation will be in a
mostly philosophical forum.
Come on!
I really do not understand you....What do you want to convey?
All the references I gave in the paper come from active
software developers!!!

Would you suggest that Peter Naur is a philosopher?
All metaprogramming and programming language theory are based
in his theories! And the paper I referenced  does not intend
to be a paper that should be discussed in a philosophical forum!
it is the opposite who is interested in philosophy is the computer
scientists ...If you wish I can give you lots of recent references...
You have e-mailed me many!!!!!!!
and indeed the so called hermeneutic computer science is
basically philosophical and its most powerful branch is the
prototype based languages!!!!
Moreover my ecodesign model and its sophisticated underlying geometric
model can be implemented very well through computer and you know this
very well!!!! It is being more and more recognized the greatest hurdle
today in software evolution is exactly the domain model!!!! All the
discovery costs are associated to it. These costs include the discovery
processes (the sophisticated cognitive processes I tried to convey them)
and the corresponding  reasoning structures.
I presented similar arguments in forums such as the 4th Workshop
on OO Architectural Evolution and in the International Workshop on
Principles of Software Evolution.  I know very well that not all the
submissions were accepted. My submission was accepted after
having been read for three referees + organizers from the Program
Committee and the three chairs of the Workshop!!!

Of course I also presented  a paper for the Semiotics Congress
where it is accepted because there is a theme about Liminarity
and Transdisciplinarity in Science!!! This theme subverts the
status quo of any discussion!!! What is liminar today is scientific
tomorrow!!! And obviously software has not reached yet the
status of science!!! I am sure my software is SCIENCE AND ART
gracefully intertwined!!! It is a white box where anybody can
learn what art is and then objectively show its aim is to convey
truth.  The difference from science is that this art experience
never ends, it never closes in a theory especially with rules
and criteria!!!


> especially because I joined
> last ECOOP'01 in Budapest and talking to many language designers
> there I concluded that the lack of training of  computer scientists
> in art makes it difficult for them to design  or understand really
> interactive and expressive languages like Self. Many  programmers
> there praised SElf/Us
> but do not know to do something similar or program in it.

I think I have already commented on this list that I find it hard to
believe that someone who is good at other programming languages can sit
down in front of Self (specially after reading at least the basic
papers) but can't figure it out. My guess is that few (or none) of the
people you talked to actually tried it.

Yes, they do not try because they cannot even understand it!! For example
AspectJ I have been trying to read something about it and attended an
excellent demonstration at ECOOP'01 and I cannot understand it!!!
I need to know much more.


The term "language designers" also worries me. Do these people actually
use what they invent year after year?

The people I know are active programmers of C++. Smalltalk, Beta, Eiffel,
design and architectural patterns!!!! Or architectural developers...
I do wonder how can  people follow X-programming without having available
a language like Self/Us!!!!!Moreover the other programmers I talk to are
interested in separation and composition of concerns!!!! So they are in the
same level conceptually as the developers of Self!!!
And yet they confessed  they do not know how to do at the level of design
and even less at the domain level!!!! I will not cite their names because
it is not elegant but they are well known researchers in the OO community!!!
Would you trust an architect who
had never lived anywhere other than a cave? Or a screen play writer who
had never gone to a movie nor even seen a TV?

This is nonsense for me!!! I am talking about my experience with active
researchers in OO programming since 1988!!! I also have an experience
with computer scientists since 1971!!! It was indeed my ex-husband
who is a PHD in computer science by Imperial College who first
pointed forward the importance of the domain model!!! The rest of his
colleagues had PhD degrees in Stanford, Berkeley, I had lived there for
six months when I was 20 years old...They were so disappointed with
the status quo of computer science that they made up their minds
the best thing to do was to "mimic"  the state of the art in computer
science and strive for the technological independence of the country!!!
It seems you are a perfect heir of this trend of thought!!!!
Yet his graduate students and I fought against this trend and wanted
to do what I am doing...!!!Sorry they could not stand the nonscientific
way of being of art or architectural schools!!!


> On the other hand, there is a growing consensus that OO paradigm is
> reaching stagnation. This is considered worse than a crisis.

Everybody agrees Smalltalk and C++ are not expressive enough!!!
Many approaches are being developed to be beyond of this hurdle!

Sina,  HyperJ, separation of concerns, design patterns and architectural
Frank Buschman told me at the tutorial I attended at ECOOP'01
that of course I could implement the patterns in Self but he would
not advise me to do so because lots of money have been spent
to make C++ and Smalltalk efficient languages!!!
However if my domain model is untameable and does not fit within
the class-based languages' framework all I have to do is to implement
things in Self or try to design other language!!!This is what is
being suggest by experts in the field of programming or related
fields here in the laboratory where I am a post-doctorate researcher!

There is no such thing from where I stand. I am still learning and
having fun. I'll write some more about this at the link you gave in
your paper -
I am also learning and having fun!!!But if I knew in 1985 that
computer science would look like the way it is I  would have
followed psychiatry.  Maybe with the new trends such as Richard
Gabriel, the design patterns' movement spearheaded by Jim
Coplien, Alistair Cockburn and more seventeen agile software
developers and so will really be fun!!!
And all these are deeply interested in philosophy!!!
Philosophy is fun when well introduced!!!

And the horoscope is for the future:  if you become
successful in advancing Self/R , the  new "philosophical and
artistic movement" grows,  the trend to create higher
level reasoning structures  advances

I do hope you can express your ideas more clearly and I do
wish you the greatest success in advancing your ideas
You should calm down and hear Peter Naur's conclusions!
Or Alistair Cockburn's conclusions about teams developing
Either one makes an effort to become software an evolutive
white box or  the introduced prototypes will fulfill  momentary
goals expensively....By 2050 maybe the big challenges mankind
have to face will  be no more challenges because man may  be
simply an endangered species !

See the Brazilian case, if it does not rain, the country may
implode from October on due to all electricity is being
generated through hydroelectrical power plants!!!
Be open and perceive the essential elements of the urban
ecosystem where you live are spirit, energy and information!!!

Yours cordially

-- Jecel

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

| Albertina Lourenci                                       |
| PhD  in Architecture and Urbanism                        |
| post-doctorate researcher                                |
| Laboratory of Integrated Systems University of Sao Paulo |
| Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 158 Travessa 3      |
| CEP: 05508-900                                           |
| Sao Paulo Sao Paulo State Brazil                         |
| Voice: +55 011 818 5254                                  |
| Fax: +55 11 211 4574                                     |