joshflowers at mac.com
Tue Jan 11 17:03:32 UTC 2011
I wonder if the 'mess' problem isn't one of those instances where the
solution is to simply embrace the problem. In my experience TDD
hasn't solved any of our real issues (i.e. increasing productivity over
the short, medium, or long term) it's just moved the problem around -
some people seem very comfortable spending half of their time
maintaining unit tests on large software projects, others dealing with
the mess of old projects. What's struck me on occasion is that we
might be better off allowing messes to be made,but also to be
Self is obviously a language where it'd be very easy to make a very
big mess, but - back to an idea that's always in the back of my mind - if
images could be loaded into images, it might not matter. If people
could load an IRCMorph image into a running image, and not have
to worry that changes they made to the string traits would have a
side effect on their irc chat, it might help resolve the mess issue
without overburdening developers.
Clearly testing frameworks would still have their uses, and there
would be other issues to deal with, but it's always been an
interesting thought experiment for me.
> He only briefly makes the argument that any medium can be improved by adding resistance. I believe resistance makes bad results harder, but it also makes good results harder.
> He argues more effectively that a programming environment can be improved by offering a mechanism to insure you maintain constraints you think are important (TDD). I find that more compelling, but it is a suggestion on how to improve an environment, not how to select a language.
> Creating an otherwise low-resistance language with the property that you can't create anything without a test would offer an interesting check of his hypothesis. Is there such a language? If not, is it even possible? (Who tests the tests?)
> He would do well to take his own advice about adopting attitudes that don't put people off ... the dripingly sarcastic tone, the bounce in his step as he walks ... heck, the fact that he feels he even needs to walk, the toss of each card to create trash for someone else to pick up with the lingering posed gesture that emphasizes how he doesn't have to attend to that problem .... they all suggest to me he wants me to know he is much more space-fillng, much larger, and perhaps therefore much more important than the average speaker.
> Personally, even though his arguments have merit, I find it an uphill battle to credit them when the presenter finds it necessary to spend all that energy conveying self-importance.
> Considering my watching his presentation as me dealing with a medium: this is a good example of how unnecessary resistance can be added to purely detrimental effect.
> On Jan 9, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Jan-Paul Bultmann wrote:
>> I just wanted to share this with you,
>> it gave me a good laugh.
>> It also has an interesting point.
>> Smalltalk died because you could make a mess too easily. And I think this is especially true to Self, because of its behaviorism.
>> Cheers Jan
> Yahoo! Groups Links
More information about the Self-interest