[Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside - @Michael Lucas-Smith

Sat Apr 18 17:52:30 UTC 2009

On Apr 18, 2009, at 7:42 PM, TheSmalltalkBlog at gmx.ch wrote:

> Hello,
>
> and thank you for one of the few constructive discussion points to  
> my proposals.
>
> You brought up some good and serious arguments - although I  
> absolutely disagree to your view of these things.
>
> But I agree with you that this instVar direct usage subject very  
> much depends on:
>> personal development style, opinion and likes/dislikes
>
> But here I am on the other side of the river. I find accesors much  
> cleaner. And I see a lot of advanges in them, f.e. when one changes  
> the implementation (Dicts, Colls etc) or when one wants to intercept  
> changes to instVar values. This is often a pain with direct instVar  
> usage.

no you use the refactoring browser + click on abstract and you get  
your accessor and hack with it.
In two clicks you can get a lazzy initialization scheme running.

> Nevertheless, this was just one less important of many arguments  
> that I brought up against current Seaside. You did not mention the  
> usage of instVars outside their classes (like in my "fields" example  
> in my WARequest posting) nor the spreading of implementation details  
> over foreign classes.  Nor did you mention my other subjects,  
> perhaps because you would have to agree?

No we do not discuss topics that are not friendly presented in the list.
Since your blog is far from polite and nearly insulting we will not  
comment on your ideas.
Now post them in a friendly way and you will probably get an answer:  
look at the way philippe
replied to my question -- and philippe is more a butcher than lukas  
(believe me :)).

> I understand that it would be hard for you to agree with somebody  
> who has been so unconventionally open and verbally aggressive like  
> me. But I felt some people here were asking for exactly this.

No Mr Cucumber as michael said there is a difference between being  
rude for nothing and being polite and just being politically correct.
We are in a politically arena here just a friendly one where people  
often drink beers together at events or share code
and hope to meet one day.

> Hoping to hear more from you on how to improve Seaside!
>
> Best regards
> Mr. Cucumber
> More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Datum: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:25:48 -0700
>> Von: Michael Lucas-Smith <mlucas-smith at cincom.com>
>> An: Seaside - general discussion <seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [Seaside] A new critical blog discussing Seaside -	 
>> Using	getters/setters
>
>> You don't like "political correctness" which is fine, I don't like it
>> either.. I do though think there is a thing called politeness,  
>> which is
>> how I personally try to hamstring my communications.
>>
>> What I'm seeing a lot of on your blog and on your posts here is your
>> personal opinion on certain engineering practices that you'retelling
>> other people to do. Do you realize that people don't like being  
>> told how
>> to think? There are many many "politically incorrect" words one can
>> apply to somebody who does that.
>>
>> Anyway, my minor rant about your approach to communicating with  
>> people
>> aside, on the matter of direct instance variable access, my personal
>> development style, opinion and likes/dislikes lend toward using  
>> direct
>> instance variable access wherever possible.
>>
>> For me, providing an accessor to a variable is like saying "this is  
>> not
>> my personal encapsulated state, it is something you can fiddle with".
>> That makes an accessor public API to me, so I won't create it  
>> unless I
>> really mean it.
>>
>> The behavior of code on my class generally accesses the instance
>> variables directly for a few reasons:
>> a) Each object is its own "cell" (biology terms), it is already
>> encapsulated
>> b) The object has no need to lie to itself (ie: have the accessor  
>> return
>> something other than the variable itself)
>> c) Sending 'self' to yourself is a tad psychotic at times. it's a bit
>> like type declarations in other programming languages.. how many  
>> times
>> do you want me to repeat myself exactly?
>>
>> So there you have it. I don't agree with you - now you can vilify me
>> too. Have at it.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> TheSmalltalkBlog at gmx.ch wrote:
>>> Thank you for these statements confirming my proposals:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is a fact that many squeak codings usually access instance  
>>>> variables
>>>> directly, what makes some coding hard to read and to understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Conclusion:
>>>
>>> It would be very simple to use accessor methods in Squeak and it's
>> generally a good idea - not my (C) btw.
>>>
>>> I fully agree!
>>>
>>> So why aren't the Seaside authors willing to learn from such  
>>> advice? Are
>> these poults wiser than the hens? There was no argument brought up to
>> justify this bad practice of direct instVar usage!
>>>
>>> More on: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> seaside mailing list
>> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
> -- 
> Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate +  
> Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>