<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Michael Latta wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; ">
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text"><p>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.<br></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote>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 :)<br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; "><div id="ygrp-mlmsg" style="position:relative;"><div id="ygrp-msg" style="z-index: 1;"><div id="ygrp-text"><p>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Michael<br>
<br>
On Jan 11, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Josh Flowers wrote:<br>
<br>
> I wonder if the 'mess' problem isn't one of those instances where the <br>
> solution is to simply embrace the problem. In my experience TDD <br>
> hasn't solved any of our real issues (i.e. increasing productivity over <br>
> the short, medium, or long term) it's just moved the problem around - <br>
> some people seem very comfortable spending half of their time <br>
> maintaining unit tests on large software projects, others dealing with <br>
> the mess of old projects. What's struck me on occasion is that we <br>
> might be better off allowing messes to be made,but also to be <br>
> contained.<br>
> <br>
> Self is obviously a language where it'd be very easy to make a very <br>
> big mess, but - back to an idea that's always in the back of my mind - if <br>
> images could be loaded into images, it might not matter. If people <br>
> could load an IRCMorph image into a running image, and not have <br>
> to worry that changes they made to the string traits would have a <br>
> side effect on their irc chat, it might help resolve the mess issue <br>
> without overburdening developers.<br>
> <br>
> Clearly testing frameworks would still have their uses, and there <br>
> would be other issues to deal with, but it's always been an <br>
> interesting thought experiment for me.<br>
> <br>
>> 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. <br>
>> <br>
>> 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.<br>
>> <br>
>> 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?)<br>
>> <br>
>> 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. <br>
>> 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.<br>
>> <br>
>> 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. <br>
>> <br>
>> --Randy<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> On Jan 9, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Jan-Paul Bultmann wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>>> Hey,<br>
>>> I just wanted to share this with you,<br>
>>> it gave me a good laugh.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <a href="http://blip.tv/file/2089545">http://blip.tv/file/2089545</a><br>
>>> <br>
>>> It also has an interesting point.<br>
>>> Smalltalk died because you could make a mess too easily. And I think this is especially true to Self, because of its behaviorism.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Cheers Jan<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> ------------------------------------<br>
>> <br>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ------------------------------------<br>
> <br>
> Yahoo! Groups Links<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<!-- end group email -->
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>