janpaulbultmann at me.com
Tue Jan 11 20:33:12 UTC 2011
On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Josh Flowers wrote:
> 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.
I think what you are describing is simply a local namespace ;), we could solve this pretty easily.
We could create local lobbys. If we created app like beings that are self contained and only reference the stuff they need explicitly. They could be filed out with all the Objects they use and imported into another image without having to export everything.
One could also think about a differential approach. You put everything you don't have yourself into the local namespace, the Prototypes and Traits that are the "same" would be shared between your old stuff and the newcomer.
(This would work as long as we don't have different primitives used in different images. *shudder*)
This would make heavy use of the identity of Objects defined by the creator path.
I personally like the idea of bringing the concept of apps (tiny information appliances like widgets) to Self, seeing Kansas as a window manager ;P
And I find the Idea that every app has it's own string, with tiny modifications not that bad. I mean thanks to behaviorism we could easily work with them. It sounds scary but it might work :D.
> 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.
> > --Randy
> > On Jan 9, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Jan-Paul Bultmann wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >> I just wanted to share this with you,
> >> it gave me a good laugh.
> >> http://blip.tv/file/2089545
> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Self-interest