Dear Selfers:
Some time ago by January, I promised I would make available the outcome of my readings. Well the final Scientific Report for Foundation of Protection to Research of São Paulo State will be at my home pages by September. But right now I have a short position (4 pages) entitled An evolutive architecture reasons as a semiotic, hermeneutic and autopoietic entity. that I will present at the International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution(IWPSE 2001) September 10-11, 2001, Vienna http://www.jaist.ac.jp/IWPSE2001/ in Vienna in September.
I would like to receive your comments 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.
On the other hand, there is a growing consensus that OO paradigm is reaching stagnation. This is considered worse than a crisis.
I look forward to your comments.
Best wishes Albertina
-- .----------------------------------------------------------. | 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 | .----------------------------------------------------------.
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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/files/ 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 transfered).
I would like to receive your comments
You presented a very large number of analogies, but no concrete advice at all. That might be appropriate if the presentation will be in a mostly philosophical forum.
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.
The term "language designers" also worries me. Do these people actually use what they invent year after year? 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?
On the other hand, there is a growing consensus that OO paradigm is reaching stagnation. This is considered worse than a crisis.
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 - http://www.merlintec.com:8080/software
-- Jecel
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 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/files/ 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 transfered).
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 truth!!!!
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 seems....software 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! Indeed 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 patterns!!! 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 - http://www.merlintec.com:8080/software
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 on....it 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 AM SURE COMPUTER SCIENCE WILL BE REWARDING AND WILL HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT IN IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF LIVING ON MOTHER EARTH!
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 software!! 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!!! NOT ONLY INFORMATION!!!!!
Yours cordially Albertina
-- Jecel
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- .----------------------------------------------------------. | 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 | .----------------------------------------------------------.
I am afraid I won't be able to give you more than a very short response and I am not sure most members of this list are interested in this discussion.
Sorry, since it is so few bytes I though t there would be no problem at all!
Your email was 81 KBytes.
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!!!
Ok.
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!!!
All I was saying is that some conferences, like POPL (Principals or Progamming Languages) are more philosophical while others, like OOPSLA, are more practical. I don't know what the workshop you sent this paper to is like, so I was saying that it was probably ok as it is.
Yes, they do not try because they cannot even understand it!!
Check out these student's experiences with Self:
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/dAOP/report-group4.pdf
There were some things they liked, a lot that they didn't. But they didn't have the kinds of problems you seem to imply the "most important researchers" are having with the language.
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.
You are an architect, not a computer scientist. So it is no big deal you didn't understand it. But if someone claiming to be a computer scientist took more than five minutes to grasp what AspectJ is all about then I would suggest they consider trying a different profession.
Now *understand* can mean several things. The first large Pascal program I ever saw was a chess program published in an old Byte magazine. The author had filled it with label declarations and gotos so that it was no better than any unstructured Basic code. It was obvious that he didn't understand what Pascal was all about. But he did undestand Pascal in the sense that he wrote a large working program in the language. I will not be at all amazed if you tell me many people don't "get" Self, but can't believe you if you say famous OO researchers are unable to program in it.
-- Jecel
Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
My dearest Jecel:
I am afraid I won't be able to give you more than a very short response and I am not sure most members of this list are interested in this discussion.
Sorry, since it is so few bytes I though t there would be no problem at all!
Your email was 81 KBytes.
For me this is too little!!!
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!!!
Ok.
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!!!
All I was saying is that some conferences, like POPL (Principals or Progamming Languages) are more philosophical while others, like OOPSLA, are more practical. I don't know what the workshop you sent this paper to is like, so I was saying that it was probably ok as it is.
OK!!In this site you can find the paper in the conttext of the Object Oriented Architectural Evolution Workshop. They are as practical as any other computer scientists.
You will find a link to your IWPSE paper on http://prog.vub.ac.be/OOAE/ECOOP2001/ECOOP2001-OOAE.HTML
Yes, they do not try because they cannot even understand it!!
Check out these student's experiences with Self:
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/dAOP/report-group4.pdf
There were some things they liked, a lot that they didn't. But they didn't have the kinds of problems you seem to imply the "most important researchers" are having with the language.
I will check this later on! However I am not inventing anything. Because I am sure Self is even more important to implement my ideas than for you !!!Not only me but the whole mankind is being harmed by the status quo of computer science!!! In the Communications of the ACM April 2001 vol 44 number 4 there is a comparison of object- and agent-based approaches.
Page 39 An agent-based approach for building complex software systems.
For the author complexity frequently takes the form of a hierachy. Well this says all!!! That is, a system composed of interrelated subsystems each of which is in turn hierarchic in structure, until the lowest level of elementary subsystem is reached. Well complexity in architecture does not have this nature!!!Hence what computer scientists want to implement even if it is complex is yet very simple compared to architectural needs. Well sustainable cities must be built immediately and all computer scientists live in houses!!! So would you tell me why computer scientists do not care at all for systems of this complexity?For me it is obvious!!!!
So the author concludes that object oriented paradigm is not so advanced as agent-based approaches based on his knowledge of class-based languages!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????
Prototype based languages are so easy and simple that 99% of the community does not know it!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
The the author argues We find that objects, classes and modules provide an essential yet insufficient means of abstraction. Individual objects represent too fine a granularity of behavior and method invocation is too primitive a mechanism for describing the types of interactions that take place. Recognition of these facts led to the development of more powerful abstraction mechanisms such as design patterns, application frame works and componentware.
Although these are undoubtedly a step forward, they fall short of the desired characteristics for complex system development.
By their very nature, they focus on generic system functions and the mandated patterns of interaction are rigid and predetermined. Basically relationships are defined by static inheritance hierarchies!!!!!
Well I am not a computer scientists but I know very that prototype based languages are a far cry superior to agent-based approaches!!!
I abandoned a BlackBoard architecture because there was Beta and later on much better Self on the horizon!!!!!!!
I am also aware that computer scientists that deal with agents are also hermeneutic computer scientists and hence the most advanced computer scientists!!!Can you give me a good explanation why this so advanced computer scientist does not know prototype based languages????
Moreover why does he ignore current approaches in OO paradigm such as that everybody is trying to mimic delegation, separation of concerns, composition of concerns, the introduction of layers and views and so on? Why he has never heard of Self ?US, Kansas and so on? Simply because the domain model (it it exists!!!) is simple enough to be implemented in agent based approach ....while my domain model requires not only all the best that Self has but also layers, views, crosscutting concerns and so on!!!! Human interaction programming alone or in group is fundamental to keep the hermeneutic structure of my ecodesign model. That software is a cooperative game is being emphasized by those that bet on X-programming!!! I wonder how they manage to do so in Smalltalk, C++, Java and so on!!!!They compare in the report from our Workshop OOAE that X-programming is similar to jazz!!!!!
Well, I spent the whole Sunday afternooon trying to understand how can one implement design patterns as layers (Jan Bosch's LayOM) and if this concept maps onto Us's layers.
Moreover I tried to understand how they are implementing layers and views in C++!!! Well this is implemented only at compiler time or at run time. What does this mean? In LayOM the layers are explicit, in C++ you play as if there are layers in your classes!!!And it is so confusing so nasty to read all this...!!!!! For me SELF/US are very nice reading!!!And what I have implemented in Self is also fun!!!
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.
You are an architect, not a computer scientist. So it is no big deal you didn't understand it. But if someone claiming to be a computer scientist took more than five minutes to grasp what AspectJ is all about then I would suggest they consider trying a different profession.
Now *understand* can mean several things. The first large Pascal program I ever saw was a chess program published in an old Byte magazine. The author had filled it with label declarations and gotos so that it was no better than any unstructured Basic code. It was obvious that he didn't understand what Pascal was all about. But he did undestand Pascal in the sense that he wrote a large working program in the language. I will not be at all amazed if you tell me many people don't "get" Self, but can't believe you if you say famous OO researchers are unable to program in it.
Well I just gave you an example above!!!I am absolutely sure applications that can be implemented in agent-based approaches and reflective architectures can be much simpler implemented in SELF/US with reflection!!!!
Why they disregard SELF/US???? I think the need for an architecture as I am trying to build one is indeed necessary for complex applications.
Anyhow I continue getting inspiration on SELF/US and I wish the best success for the language and its community. I am also part of it of course.\
Good evening, Albertina
-- Jecel
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- .----------------------------------------------------------. | 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 | .----------------------------------------------------------.
Dear Jecel:
Yes, they do not try because they cannot even understand it!!
Check out these student's experiences with Self:
http://www.daimi.aau.dk/dAOP/report-group4.pdf
There were some things they liked, a lot that they didn't. But they didn't have the kinds of problems you seem to imply the "most important researchers" are having with the language.
I have finished reading this report!!It obviously coincides with
my feelings and expectations about Self. I am sure the graphical editor to design ecobuildings we designed together and you implemented it in Self is far more evolved than their very simple text editor. And I am sure they have much more problems than we simply because they do not have a robust domain model. I believe the data structure used does not fully exploit Selfs potential. In our case we exhausted Selfs potentials and opened the gate for Self/Us.
Your idea of telling me that not all people think the same way and so on does not fit at all in the context of computer science especially while SCIENCE and even as art!!!!
Every researcher that wants to be called a scientific researcher has the moral responsibility of evidencing truth (this is also valid for artistic researchers, art is also a scientifc experience!!!).
So what I feel is that researchers in computer science like architects forget about science and try to deliver just what adapts to a reality of poor technology and what market demands.
I am sure I will never run the risk of falling into this category. And of course I intend to join a Symposium about Sustainable Development and a New System of Societal Values to be held in Austria in December to deal with this issue!!
Thank you very much for the excellent reference to the report above. Indeed I am a great fan of the Beta group!!!!!
Best wishes Albertina
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-- .----------------------------------------------------------. | 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 | .----------------------------------------------------------.
Albertina,
their text editor is probably a little more complex than the graphical editor we implemented, and they had the extra complications of multiple users.
What was interesting about their experience is that they found the real problem with Self to be that it isn't really finished. The two trainees who worked for me ran across the same problem: I knew where the "edges" were and stayed away from them, enjoying Self for hours at a time with no crashes. They would typically cause a very hard to recover error every two or three things they did.
-- Jecel
self-interest@lists.selflanguage.org
-
Albertina Lourenci -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr