[self-interest] UnitTests

[dpharris at telus.net]

Can you give 'us' a url, again.  'us' is very difficult to google.  

Thanks!
David



Quoting ungar at mac.com:

> Randy's and my own Us paper addressed this problem very nicely, IMO.
> 
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jan-Paul Bultmann wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Michael Latta wrote:
> > 
> >>  
> >> At the latest RubyConf they discussed having the ability to have methods
> local to a scope, and a method or class could explicitly partake in various
> scopes. This makes impact of changes on other parts of the system explicit.
> The problem is likely to be the case like in strongly typed languages where
> you suddenly can not change something without the ability to add a new scope,
> and the need to add it in a ton of places.
> >> 
> > Clone the lobby point to the new "lobby" via a parent slot and mess with it
> :D, I think that would pretty much have the same effect :)
> >> 
> >> For example you add a new method you want to impact all strings
> (pluralize), so you create a scope and start using it. While you start out
> with a few uses that can explicitly reference the scope. There tomes a time
> where you want it generally available. So it delays the problem of impact but
> does not avoid it. Also with functionality divided between scopes, there
> becomes a dependency issue, which if the scopes are too fine-grained will be
> as bad as the problem.
> >> 
> >> I think the attempt to avoid unintended consequences is largely an
> unsolved problem in software, and very much a research topic at this point. I
> have not looked at Us yet, so that may have dealt with it well.
> >> 
> >> Michael
> >> 
> >> On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:03 AM, 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 
> >> > contained.
> >> > 
> >> > 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. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> --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
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > ------------------------------------
> >> > 
> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>