To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org> From: craig@netjam.org> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:36:30 -0700> Subject: re: Contributors Agreement signature status?> > I'm mostly a technocrat: I want to put my effort into the> technology I think is most effective. Do you have a similar mindset? Is> there something about Spoon that you think is lacking? Are we dealing> with technical issues, or political ones, or something else? It's not> clear to me why, apparently, we're working at cross purposes.Just as an observer from the side, isn't it the case that Pavel is trying the make the smallest possible code base *with current Squeak* while you are making lots of modifications to how the environment itself works? And if that's the case, would they still be cross purposes? I would see it more as "low hanging fruit" (so to speak) vs. "the whole shabang", no?
_________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlmailtextlink
Hi JJ--
(Is it just me, or do all your messages come through without newlines, even in the quoted material?)
Just as an observer from the side...
What's holding you back?
...isn't it the case that Pavel is trying the make the smallest possible code base *with current Squeak* while you are making lots of modifications to how the environment itself works?
That's one way to put it, I suppose. However, I suspect there isn't an easy definition of what "current Squeak" is after you've done anything to it, unless your goal is to end up exactly where you started. Do we really want to end up where we started?
And if that's the case, would they still be cross purposes? I would see it more as "low hanging fruit" (so to speak) vs. "the whole shabang", no?
No, that's not how I see it. There's more involved in the value of that fruit than the mere fact it hangs low. :) I think the amount of duplicated work, for results that aren't as useful, makes it something not worth doing that way (mostly because we are strapped for time and other resources). Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
thanks,
-C
On 7/5/07, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
I'll speak plainly back, then. You asked in a recent message how to get someone else to use Spoon. The only true answer I can give is, offer them a short term gain. Yes, short term incremental improvement causes the total effort to be greater, but it also mitigates adoption risk: at each incremental stage you can assess whether or not people are actually going to use the work you're doing or not, and modify what you're doing accordingly. It's great to go off on a long-term research project and come back with something beautiful, but there is a significant risk that it will turn out not to be what people actually want, and get no adoption. Having an incremental process in the meantime is valuable, both as a backup in case the long-term project fails, but also to inform the long term project about what the community finds useful and what falls flat.
In Vancouver, where I live, there is currently a massive multi-year project going on to extend a subway line from downtown out to the airport. In 2010, when it's complete, it'll be great. For now, it's a massive disruption.
I can live with the disruption. Here's what I wouldn't be able to live with: when I'm standing on the street corner hailing a cab to take me to the airport, one of the subway engineers comes over and tells me off. "All you have to do is grab a shovel and help out and we'll get you to the airport in style - *so* much better than a taxi, and less total effort in the long run." That's nice, buddy, but I've got a plane to catch.
Avi
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:56:59 -0700, Avi Bryant avi@dabbledb.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
I can live with the disruption. Here's what I wouldn't be able to live with: when I'm standing on the street corner hailing a cab to take me to the airport, one of the subway engineers comes over and tells me off. "All you have to do is grab a shovel and help out and we'll get you to the airport in style - *so* much better than a taxi, and less total effort in the long run." That's nice, buddy, but I've got a plane to catch.
Maybe I mis-appraise the situation, I can't recall Craig ever asking for help. Other than "try out the latest", that is. I don't think there's much to be done until Spoon is usable to start adding on.
To strain the metaphor, the subway engineer is really just telling you that shovels should be along soon.<s>
Now, maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the "project of decent size" would be Squeak itself. Should Spoon and Squeak not be compatible to a high degree, particularly at the higher levels?
Once the shovels are available, I can't imaagine we won't see a lot of digging. But that's speculation for now.
Hi Blake--
Maybe I mis-appraise the situation, I can't recall Craig ever asking for help. Other than "try out the latest", that is. I don't think there's much to be done until Spoon is usable to start adding on.
I had thought I was asking for help by asking for feedback about the design ideas, as mentioned in the Spoon progress reports.
-C
-- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:07:42 -0700, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
Hi Blake--
Maybe I mis-appraise the situation, I can't recall Craig ever asking for help. Other than "try out the latest", that is. I don't think there's much to be done until Spoon is usable to start adding on.
I had thought I was asking for help by asking for feedback aboutthe design ideas, as mentioned in the Spoon progress reports.
Craig,
Oh, sure. To continue the metaphor, you're a guy with a shovel saying, "Well, what's the best place to dig?" That's asking for help.
But that's an entirely different sort of help from, "Help me dig," which was the sort of help Avi was talking about, I believe.
===Blake===
On 7/6/07, Blake blake@kingdomrpg.com wrote:
Oh, sure. To continue the metaphor, you're a guy with a shovel saying,"Well, what's the best place to dig?" That's asking for help.
But that's an entirely different sort of help from, "Help me dig," whichwas the sort of help Avi was talking about, I believe.
I think this is missing the point of my metaphor a bit, though, which was that regardlessof what the guy with the shovel wants, what I need in that situation is a cab. It's hard to pay much attention to the subway construction when you're so focused on making the next plane, which I think a lot of us are.
Avi
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:49:16 -0700, Avi Bryant avi@dabbledb.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, Blake blake@kingdomrpg.com wrote:
Oh, sure. To continue the metaphor, you're a guy with a shovelsaying, "Well, what's the best place to dig?" That's asking for help.
But that's an entirely different sort of help from, "Help medig," which was the sort of help Avi was talking about, I believe.
I think this is missing the point of my metaphor a bit, though, which was that regardless of what the guy with the shovel wants, what I need in that situation is a cab. It's hard to pay much attention to the subway construction when you're so focused on making the next plane, which I think a lot of us are.
Fair 'nuff. I'd only add that there are lots of us standing on the curb, and the situations are different for all of us. And my point was, I don't think there'll be any shortage of people willing to help build the subway, even as we're using the bus or Pavel's shuttle* to get there now.
And with that, I think I've beaten the metaphor to death.
===Blake===
*By the way, has anyone reported here on using Pavel's stuff? I see lots of options on his site; I'd be interested to know how it was working out for people.
Here are some explicit requests for help:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2003-May/000010.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2004-March/000049.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2004-March/000050.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2004-August/000060.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2004-December/000063.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2006-January/000103.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2007-March/000155.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2007-April/000191.html http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2007-June/000203.html
I got help on each of these things from several people who responded, except for:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2004-March/000049.html
There are also requests for help on the Spoon website. I got a lot of good help from people trying out the releases, e.g., the responses to the 2a releases and the Spoon book draft in April 2007.
-C
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:55:04 -0700, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
I got help on each of these things from several people whoresponded, except for:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/spoon/2004-March/000049.html
Make the VM as small as possible? 200K is the current "smallest size"?
Hi Avi--
Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
I'll speak plainly back, then.
Thank you!
You asked in a recent message how to get someone else to use Spoon. The only true answer I can give is, offer them a short term gain. Yes, short term incremental improvement causes the total effort to be greater, but it also mitigates adoption risk: at each incremental stage you can assess whether or not people are actually going to use the work you're doing or not, and modify what you're doing accordingly. It's great to go off on a long-term research project and come back with something beautiful, but there is a significant risk that it will turn out not to be what people actually want, and get no adoption. Having an incremental process in the meantime is valuable, both as a backup in case the long-term project fails, but also to inform the long term project about what the community finds useful and what falls flat.
There were two principles I was following. The first was that, occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just the people espousing them or the funding they represented.
The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
I'm quite willing to grant that I've misunderstood these principles, or that they don't hold anymore (whether or not they ever actually did).
In Vancouver, where I live, there is currently a massive multi-year project going on to extend a subway line from downtown out to the airport. In 2010, when it's complete, it'll be great. For now, it's a massive disruption.
I can live with the disruption. Here's what I wouldn't be able to live with: when I'm standing on the street corner hailing a cab to take me to the airport, one of the subway engineers comes over and tells me off. "All you have to do is grab a shovel and help out and we'll get you to the airport in style - *so* much better than a taxi, and less total effort in the long run." That's nice, buddy, but I've got a plane to catch.
That's a straw man argument. In reality, there's usually a discussion as to whether the design is worth funding (if there was a vote, did you participate? What was your consideration process?). If passed, the people building the system attempt to draw the labor from people who at least are interested in participating, and who probably also consider themselves qualified. (If you want to pursue this analogy further, please use a new thread?)
thanks again,
-C
On 7/6/07, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision couldameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
Aha. My personal observation has been that this principle does not hold. One piece of evidence I have is the various version control systems I have worked on for Squeak. The current version of Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working and useful artifact without any prior discussion.
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years: discussions about the future go precisely nowhere. Ditto experimental branches for people to play with. But make a deep change that still lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
Avi
Dear Avi and all,
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers
I am not sure what you mean by plenty of information though. There is source code. Long ago I concluded that the "Avi" definition of "plenty of information" differs greatly from mine. How about some white papers?
at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever.
This is not strictly true.
In the spirit of incremental, and hence hopefully adoptable progress. There is a version of Monticello1 which has SystemEditor from MC2 in it, ready to use. It only took one day to put this in, I did it about 6 weeks ago, and it is ready to roll when SystemEditor works.
This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
So we are ready to go when SystemEditor from MC2 is ready. Unfortunately I dont know enough about the compilation/class composition of squeak to fix it. I will also say that SystemEditor is a really impressive bit of code, and I dont feel in any way qualified to contribute to it.
best regards
Keith
we hope with damien to - get MC2 usable for everybody - have a good documentation (white paper)
But now I'm running to find a flat in the other side of france :) Boxing after unboxing.... ooops packing after unpacking... this is life.
Stef On 7 juil. 07, at 04:00, Keith Hodges wrote:
Dear Avi and all,
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers
I am not sure what you mean by plenty of information though. There is source code. Long ago I concluded that the "Avi" definition of "plenty of information" differs greatly from mine. How about some white papers?
at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever.
This is not strictly true.
In the spirit of incremental, and hence hopefully adoptable progress. There is a version of Monticello1 which has SystemEditor from MC2 in it, ready to use. It only took one day to put this in, I did it about 6 weeks ago, and it is ready to roll when SystemEditor works.
keith I'm confused. Is systemeditor working or not?
This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
So we are ready to go when SystemEditor from MC2 is ready. Unfortunately I dont know enough about the compilation/class composition of squeak to fix it. I will also say that SystemEditor is a really impressive bit of code, and I dont feel in any way qualified to contribute to it.
best regards
Keith
Hi Avi and everyone--
There were two principles I was following. The first was that, occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just [to] the people espousing them or the funding they represented.
The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
Aha. My personal observation has been that this principle does not hold. One piece of evidence I have is the various version control systems I have worked on for Squeak. The current version of Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working and useful artifact without any prior discussion.
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years: discussions about the future go precisely nowhere. Ditto experimental branches for people to play with. But make a deep change that still lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
Okay, but if the second principle doesn't hold, then I don't see how the first one can have any actual significance in this community. To use Koestler's "bisociation" metaphor[1] yet again, it seems that where I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively willing to take.
So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who can take some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical", despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the attempts anyway).
In the absence of meaningful planning by the Squeak community on whether, when, and how to use Spoon, those working on it[2] can only leave those decisions to others. Oh, and I suppose those with funding can feel free to speak up at any time. :)
In short (too late! ;), I won't press this further, you all know where to find Spoon info if you want it[3]. I'll keep helping in other ways. Thanks for reading.
-C
[1] ...the "blue/pink planes" stuff, e.g. as mentioned by Kay from 17:25 onward in http://tinyurl.com/ok5df (video.google.com).
[2] ...it's not just me, although I am coordinating it.
-- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
Craig, I believe SPOON is a very important departure. It permits the fundamentally new to live side by side with the old. It deserves to succeed.
The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary, the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
I am afraid you expect too much from the community. Like everyone else, I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon the success of another./ (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project hasn't got as far as I expected.
Dear Craig. I understand your funding has dried out so that funding is your prime concern. But I sincerely hope you can continue your work on SPOON. You may have to do it alone until you have a reasonably stable core so that other people can start populating it with their own pet revolutions. I think it was Storm-P who said: "When you want to change the world, start in its center and begin with yourself".
All the best --Trygve
On 12.07.2007 04:11, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi Avi and everyone--
There were two principles I was following. The first was that, occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just [to] the people espousing them or the funding they represented.
The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
Aha. My personal observation has been that this principle does not hold. One piece of evidence I have is the various version control systems I have worked on for Squeak. The current version of Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working and useful artifact without any prior discussion.
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years: discussions about the future go precisely nowhere. Ditto experimental branches for people to play with. But make a deep change that still lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
Okay, but if the second principle doesn't hold, then I don't seehow the first one can have any actual significance in this community. To use Koestler's "bisociation" metaphor[1] yet again, it seems that where I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively willing to take.
So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who cantake some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical", despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the attempts anyway).
In the absence of meaningful planning by the Squeak community onwhether, when, and how to use Spoon, those working on it[2] can only leave those decisions to others. Oh, and I suppose those with funding can feel free to speak up at any time. :)
In short (too late! ;), I won't press this further, you all knowwhere to find Spoon info if you want it[3]. I'll keep helping in other ways. Thanks for reading.
-C
[1] ...the "blue/pink planes" stuff, e.g. as mentioned by Kay from 17:25 onward in http://tinyurl.com/ok5df (video.google.com).
[2] ...it's not just me, although I am coordinating it.
-- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
Hi--
Trygve writes:
The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary, the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
Well, I wasn't asking anyone to throw anything away. I was asking for planning. Continuity is actually very important to me. Indeed, if it weren't, I wouldn't have taken the tactic of changing Squeak into what I want; I would have made something completely new. I'm also putting a lot of work into paths from current Squeak to Spoon (e.g., adapting my VM and remote browsing changes to Squeak 3.9).
I am afraid you expect too much from the community.
It seems so.
I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon the success of another. (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
Ah, but I think we take that too far and commit error 34 (insisting upon small incremental changes *at all times*) and error 35 (being unwilling to imagine a way to achieve larger changes in the future). I think these are much worse than error 33, and as an exquisite case in point I present the very origin of that term, Xerox PARC. :)
Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project hasn't got as far as I expected.
It is indeed alpha software currently, as marked. Still, I hadn't thought that would keep people from considering possibilities.
Juan writes:
...you are a member of the Board. Doesn't this help you understand better the future of Squeak?
Well, it certainly puts me in closer contact with more people; I have more discussions about the future of Squeak than I might otherwise. But as far as my own opinions go, so far it seems that being on the board has just been a conflict of interest. (Of course there's still a lot of other good work to do, like sorting out the license situation and our legal viability). I thought about this a lot before the elections in 2006 (I ended up deciding not to run unless I was nominated).
Doesn't this allow you to decide about it?
I certainly have a voice, but I (should be) just one of seven people. And even when the seven of us are in agreement, if the rest of the community doesn't want to go along, things won't work. There will just be a new set of seven after the next election, the cat-herding continuing as before. The election can be taken as a mandate, I suppose, but the will of this community is so fluid that I'm not sure how long one can point to that for authority. :)
Things really only worked before when there was an unquestioned dictatorial entity (Kay's team), and that depended on funding and the primacy of their original work. I'm not saying that's the only viable way to go, but it's worth remembering. One could simply decide to turn the community into another dictatorship, but I would only feel comfortable with that (as either leader or follower) if it were decided by community consensus (in perhaps its last democratic act ;).
If you are in trouble knowing about the future of Spoon and Squeak, what's left to people like me with Morphic 3?
The phrase "in the same boat" comes to mind. :)
Thanks, you two, and Laurence, and those who wrote in private, for the kind words!
-C
On 12.07.2007 22:36, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi--
Trygve writes:The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary, the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
Well, I wasn't asking anyone to throw anything away. I was askingfor planning. Continuity is actually very important to me. Indeed, if it weren't, I wouldn't have taken the tactic of changing Squeak into what I want; I would have made something completely new. I'm also putting a lot of work into paths from current Squeak to Spoon (e.g., adapting my VM and remote browsing changes to Squeak 3.9).
We agree on this point. I'm afraid I was riding a hobby horse here.
I am afraid you expect too much from the community.
It seems so.
May be the community expects too much from you, too. When I tried to start SPOON a the end of May, I followed your instructions to "view the current _installed modules", but got an error. When I reported it, you answered "Great, you got as far as trying that! :) Those things don't actually work in that release, stay tuned for the next release." I may be naive, but I did not expect you to invite me to spend my time on things that just cannot work.
I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon the success of another. (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
Ah, but I think we take that too far and commit error 34 (insistingupon small incremental changes *at all times*) and error 35 (being unwilling to imagine a way to achieve larger changes in the future). I think these are much worse than error 33, and as an exquisite case in point I present the very origin of that term, Xerox PARC. :)
I know error 33 came from PARC; I was there. But you misunderstand it. It leaves you free to reinvent the world, but warns me about prematurely building on your results. I do not insist on small incremental changes. That is precisely why I hope for a usable SPOON, an environment for a new and fundamental change that can co-exist with the old.
Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project hasn't got as far as I expected.
It is indeed alpha software currently, as marked. Still, I hadn'tthought that would keep people from considering possibilities.
You first have to give me something to consider... :-)
Cheers --Trygve
Hi Trygve--
When I tried to start SPOON at the end of May, I followed your instructions to "view the current _installed modules"...
You're referring to text within the alpha release itself (the webpage presented on startup).
...but got an error. When I reported it, you answered "Great, you got as far as trying that! :) Those things don't actually work in that release, stay tuned for the next release."
Now you're referring to a private email message I sent directly to you.
I may be naive, but I did not expect you to invite me to spend my time on things that just cannot work.
With all due respect, yes, I would call that naive with regard to what "alpha software" is. We seem to be repeating ourselves here. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I know error 33 came from PARC; I was there.
I know you were, that's why I thought it was a compelling thing to elaborate upon that point in this discussion with you.
But you misunderstand it. It leaves you free to reinvent the world, but warns me about prematurely building on your results.
I understand that quite well. I was pointing out other even worse errors that can arise from attempts to avoid that situation.
I do not insist on small incremental changes.
I was not referring specifically to you, but to the Squeak community on the whole.
Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project hasn't got as far as I expected.
It is indeed alpha software currently, as marked. Still, I hadn't thought that would keep people from considering possibilities.
You first have to give me something to consider... :-)
Well, I thought I had: a vision for how Squeak could work, and the design ideas I am pursuing to get there.
I appreciate your unpleasant situation - so many important ideas waiting to be realized and nobody willing to pay your living expenses.
Trygve, forgive me, but I think you are venturing into extremely inappropriate territory here. I had never brought my personal financial situation into this discussion, and I would appreciate that you refrain from doing so. Furthermore, what you have said is untrue. Since 2002 I have made my living as an independent consultant. While I do announce when I have available time, I have clients.
If you would like to continue this conversation, may I suggest you do so in private, and not on this mailing list? Thank you.
So, as I have said before. SPOON is too promising to be stopped.
thanks again,
-C
/me hands craig and trygve some milk and cookies
-Boris
On Jul 13, 2007, at 23:38 , Dan Ingalls wrote:
Just thought you guys might appreciate...
ROTFL! Hey, just what I needed after this week ...
- Bert -
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 23:38 , Dan Ingalls wrote:
Just thought you guys might appreciate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj4moeKDGY4ROTFL! Hey, just what I needed after this week ...
:-) ++1
Cool idea to get my 15 year old Transalp up to speed ;-) Might be a challenge to run this by the German "TÜV" though...
Michael
On Jul 13, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 23:38 , Dan Ingalls wrote:
Just thought you guys might appreciate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj4moeKDGY4ROTFL! Hey, just what I needed after this week ...
:-) ++1
Cool idea to get my 15 year old Transalp up to speed ;-) Might be a challenge to run this by the German "TÜV" though...
Michael
Right we could run the list of lack of safety features: No deadman's switch since I note the bike almost got away from Dan at the start. Where is the hearing protection? A chunk of plywood for a heat shield?
-- ======================================================================== === John M. McIntosh johnmci@smalltalkconsulting.com Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ======================================================================== ===
On Jul 14, 2007, at 0:18 , John M McIntosh wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Michael Rueger wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 23:38 , Dan Ingalls wrote:
Just thought you guys might appreciate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj4moeKDGY4ROTFL! Hey, just what I needed after this week ...
:-) ++1
Cool idea to get my 15 year old Transalp up to speed ;-) Might be a challenge to run this by the German "TÜV" though...
Michael
Right we could run the list of lack of safety features: No deadman's switch since I note the bike almost got away from Dan at the start. Where is the hearing protection? A chunk of plywood for a heat shield?
Plywood shield? Don't make fun of Dan just because he wrote a Squeak VM in Java ...
- Bert -
Ha! I love it! Talk about yer refactoring and reuse. :-) On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Dan Ingalls wrote:
Just thought you guys might appreciate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj4moeKDGY4
- D
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:38:21PM -0700, Dan Ingalls wrote:
Just thought you guys might appreciate...
Well, the sound and the general layout of the propulsion system remind me of the ultralight that I used to fly in the 1980s. Mine is still in the garage, but here's one one a museum: http://www.aeromuseum.org/aircraft_american.html
So now I'm trying to figure out how many leaf blowers it will take to get airborne. Tim, I seem to recall from your web site that you tinker with model aircraft. Maybe I'm getting conservative in my old age, but a small unmanned version would seem a prudent first step. If a leaf-blower jet bicycle is not enough to annoy all of the neighbors, a flying model that buzzes over the rooftops is sure to do the trick. What do you think?
Dave
Craig, I appreciate your unpleasant situation - so many important ideas waiting to be realized and nobody willing to pay your living expenses. (I'm extremely fortunate, I get my pension and nobody asks me how I spend my time). So, as I have said before. SPOON is too promising to be stopped.
More comments inline below.
On 12.07.2007 22:36, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi--
Trygve writes:The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary, the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
Well, I wasn't asking anyone to throw anything away. I was askingfor planning. Continuity is actually very important to me. Indeed, if it weren't, I wouldn't have taken the tactic of changing Squeak into what I want; I would have made something completely new. I'm also putting a lot of work into paths from current Squeak to Spoon (e.g., adapting my VM and remote browsing changes to Squeak 3.9).
We agree on this point. I'm afraid I was riding a hobby horse here.
I am afraid you expect too much from the community.
It seems so.
May be the community expects too much from you, too. When I tried to start SPOON a the end of May, I followed your instructions to "view the current _installed modules", but got an error. When I reported it, you answered "Great, you got as far as trying that! :) Those things don't actually work in that release, stay tuned for the next release." I may be naive, but I did not expect you to invite me to spend my time on things that just cannot work.
I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon the success of another. (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
Ah, but I think we take that too far and commit error 34 (insistingupon small incremental changes *at all times*) and error 35 (being unwilling to imagine a way to achieve larger changes in the future). I think these are much worse than error 33, and as an exquisite case in point I present the very origin of that term, Xerox PARC. :)
I know error 33 came from PARC; I was there. But you misunderstand it. It leaves you free to reinvent the world, but warns me about prematurely building on your results. I do not insist on small incremental changes. That is precisely why I hope for a usable SPOON, an environment for new and fundamental changes that can co-exist with the old.
Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project hasn't got as far as I expected.
It is indeed alpha software currently, as marked. Still, I hadn'tthought that would keep people from considering possibilities.
You first have to give me something to consider... :-)
Cheers --Trygve
On 7/11/07, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
<snip> ... it seems that where I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively willing to take.
So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who cantake some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical", despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the attempts anyway).
As with the Smalltalk memehttp://croquet.funkencode.com/2007/04/07/evolution-in-cyberspace-the-smalltalk-meme/that spawned it, Spoon's impact won't be based solely on quantity nor on adoption by the people who would seem to benefit most from it. In fact, not having been widely adopted has probably been a plus. When Spoon is everywhere, there will be no Spoon. Your committment to Spoon is inspiring.
Best,
Laurence
Hi Craig,
I'm a real fan of Spoon. I really hope it will be the foundation of Squeak soon.
I feel the same as you say, WRT Morphic 3. And I'm doing as you.
However, you are a member of the Board. Doesn't this help you understand better the future of Squeak? Doesn't this allow you to decide about it? If you are in trouble knowing about the future of Spoon and Squeak, what's left to people like me with Morphic 3?
Cheers, Juan Vuletich
Craig Latta escribió:
Hi Avi and everyone--
There were two principles I was following. The first was that, occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just [to] the people espousing them or the funding they represented.
The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
Aha. My personal observation has been that this principle does not hold. One piece of evidence I have is the various version control systems I have worked on for Squeak. The current version of Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working and useful artifact without any prior discussion.
For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers at several points, but never released something that people could actually use for their daily work. Result: apart from Damien who recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years: discussions about the future go precisely nowhere. Ditto experimental branches for people to play with. But make a deep change that still lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
Okay, but if the second principle doesn't hold, then I don't seehow the first one can have any actual significance in this community. To use Koestler's "bisociation" metaphor[1] yet again, it seems that where I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively willing to take.
So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who cantake some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical", despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the attempts anyway).
In the absence of meaningful planning by the Squeak community onwhether, when, and how to use Spoon, those working on it[2] can only leave those decisions to others. Oh, and I suppose those with funding can feel free to speak up at any time. :)
In short (too late! ;), I won't press this further, you all knowwhere to find Spoon info if you want it[3]. I'll keep helping in other ways. Thanks for reading.
-C
[1] ...the "blue/pink planes" stuff, e.g. as mentioned by Kay from 17:25 onward in http://tinyurl.com/ok5df (video.google.com).
[2] ...it's not just me, although I am coordinating it.
-- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
"Avi Bryant" avi@dabbledb.com writes:
On 7/5/07, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
I'll speak plainly back, then. You asked in a recent message how to get someone else to use Spoon. The only true answer I can give is, offer them a short term gain. Yes, short term incremental improvement causes the total effort to be greater, but it also mitigates adoption risk: at each incremental stage you can assess whether or not people are actually going to use the work you're doing or not, and modify what you're doing accordingly.
I submit that also, some of the ideas are controversial. One person's leap to the future, is another person's final plunge into stark raving madness.
It is really cool that Squeak has people like Craig trying out wild ideas. At the same time, it's really cool that Squeak has a proven core on which you can reliably develop practical software. Heck, without that practical core, how much of the cool stuff would even get off the ground?
We should cherish and respect both kinds of software and ideas within the community.
Lex
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:41:30PM -0700, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi JJ--
(Is it just me, or do all your messages come through withoutnewlines, even in the quoted material?)
Just as an observer from the side...
What's holding you back?...isn't it the case that Pavel is trying the make the smallest possible code base *with current Squeak* while you are making lots of modifications to how the environment itself works?
That's one way to put it, I suppose. However, I suspect there isn'tan easy definition of what "current Squeak" is after you've done anything to it, unless your goal is to end up exactly where you started. Do we really want to end up where we started?
And if that's the case, would they still be cross purposes? I would see it more as "low hanging fruit" (so to speak) vs. "the whole shabang", no?
No, that's not how I see it. There's more involved in the value ofthat fruit than the mere fact it hangs low. :) I think the amount of duplicated work, for results that aren't as useful, makes it something not worth doing that way (mostly because we are strapped for time and other resources). Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
I don't see duplicated work going on between Pavel and Craig, only similar results.
Pavel, on the one hand, is finishing up the packaging effort that started in 3.9 (or earlier; I wasn't here before that). The goal is to split the monolithic image into packages that load and unload cleanly. 3.9 got almost all the way there; all that remained was Morphic. The goal is creating packages that work with the current tools (Monticello).
Craig, on the other hand, is building a system better able to handle packaging. Monticello was strapped onto Squeak at a high level, but is not usable throughout. Spoon, on the other hand, is the love child of Squeak and Monticello, with growth and modularity built right in, all the way down to VM support where necessary.
Thus Pavel is dividing up the image into much more manageable chunks, and Craig is providing a system for growth. Both efforts end up creating a small image without any extension modules, but the work to get there was very different, and was not duplicated effort.
As soon as spoon learns to walk, I daresay the first thing it will find to play with is the packages created using Monticello, including those made by Pavel.
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:41:30 -0700, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
(Is it just me, or do all your messages come through withoutnewlines, even in the quoted material?)
I get the same thing, until I switch to using HTML rendering, and then his messages come out fine...
Later, Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hylands Jon@huv.com http://www.huv.com/jon
Project: Micro Raptor (Small Biped Velociraptor Robot) http://www.huv.com/blog
I'm late but I'd like to clarify something.
Pavel and Edgar's shrinking work is *needed* for Spoon because, TMK, Spoon doesn't operate with units smaller than methods. Pavel and Edgar are refactoring methods (I hope), extracting chunks of code from methods doing too much into their own, smaller, methods.
This gives Spoon finer-grained pieces to work with to build a much better quality minimal image when imprinting.
- Chris
On 7/5/07, Craig Latta craig@netjam.org wrote:
Hi JJ--
(Is it just me, or do all your messages come through withoutnewlines, even in the quoted material?)
Just as an observer from the side...
What's holding you back?...isn't it the case that Pavel is trying the make the smallest possible code base *with current Squeak* while you are making lots of modifications to how the environment itself works?
That's one way to put it, I suppose. However, I suspect there isn'tan easy definition of what "current Squeak" is after you've done anything to it, unless your goal is to end up exactly where you started. Do we really want to end up where we started?
And if that's the case, would they still be cross purposes? I would see it more as "low hanging fruit" (so to speak) vs. "the whole shabang", no?
No, that's not how I see it. There's more involved in the value ofthat fruit than the mere fact it hangs low. :) I think the amount of duplicated work, for results that aren't as useful, makes it something not worth doing that way (mostly because we are strapped for time and other resources). Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
thanks,-C
El 7/14/07 12:08 PM, "Chris Muller" asqueaker@gmail.com escribió:
I'm late but I'd like to clarify something.
Pavel and Edgar's shrinking work is *needed* for Spoon because, TMK, Spoon doesn't operate with units smaller than methods. Pavel and Edgar are refactoring methods (I hope), extracting chunks of code from methods doing too much into their own, smaller, methods.
This gives Spoon finer-grained pieces to work with to build a much better quality minimal image when imprinting.
- Chris
Craig and Pavel are my inspiration and I try to learn of both
It's a matter of what is needed for loading actual packages , Spoon can do ?
And also reshaping of actual packages (my Ladrillos idea).
As example , what if I wish load into Spoon only the needed for work with external .gif, .png, .jpg ?
We don't need all in actual packages.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:08:56 -0700, Chris Muller asqueaker@gmail.com wrote:
I'm late but I'd like to clarify something.
Pavel and Edgar's shrinking work is *needed* for Spoon because, TMK, Spoon doesn't operate with units smaller than methods. Pavel and Edgar are refactoring methods (I hope), extracting chunks of code from methods doing too much into their own, smaller, methods.
This gives Spoon finer-grained pieces to work with to build a much better quality minimal image when imprinting.
That was my understanding as well. I'm not sure now if that's true but it seems logical.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Avi Bryant -
Bert Freudenberg -
Blake -
Boris Popov -
Chris Muller -
Craig Latta -
Dan Ingalls -
David T. Lewis -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
J J -
John M McIntosh -
Jon Hylands -
Juan Vuletich -
Keith Hodges -
Laurence Rozier -
Lex Spoon -
Matthew Fulmer -
Michael Rueger -
stephane ducasse -
Todd Blanchard -
Trygve Reenskaug