On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Les Tyrrell wrote:
[snip]
> > Seems like a good junction to point out again (as I and others have) that
> > dependancy tracking management, packaging, modules, and a bunch of other
> > things are distinct. What *I* want is that things don't break easily, that
> > they're easy to fix, it's easy to make things that don't break, it's
> > easy to change stuff without breaking things that are hard to fix, and
> > that things are easy to understand, explore, figure out, etc.
> >
> > That's all. :)
> 
> Is that what you have now?

Sometimes. Sometimes not. It helps if someone else fixes things up just
like it's nice if someone organizes my papers.

Many systems with various sorts of modularity (and modules) don't seem to
typically work *better* for me. I use python and erlang (and right now
SWI-Prolog) a lot and I have a better time slinging around Squeak. I'm not
thrilled with VisualWork's namespaces, either, although that may just
because they broke all the tools. Dolphin Smalltalk's packages are ok, if
sometimes hard to whip around.

[snip]
> The System and Specification spaces are separate and orthogonal.
> They should not be coerced to fold onto each other, unless that is
> what the user wants.   There should be nothing to prevent sharing
> a single Specification in several System spaces.

Yes. I think. (I read your article and liked it a lot, even with the
munged line wrapping on my machien :), but I didn't retain it all. A
serious response is, perhaps, in the offing.)

> > Multiple change sets associated with a project would be nice too.
> 
> See my previous line.

Sure. I certainly believe that Oasis is a dandy system!

[snip]
> > Hmm. Thinking off the track for a moment, it's sorta like prototype
> > vs. classes. Prototypes are great for evolving stuff, going with the flow,
> > and hanging loose. And they suck when you have a bazillion of not quite
> > the same and not quite right objects. Classes are handy organizers, but
> > often they're *too much*, too rigid, too uptight. It's not *just* a matter
> > of ad hoc vs. upfront organization (er..that's not quite right, but
> > someone will understand! I have faith! :)), it's about having to make
> > certain decisions for the say of the organization, rather than because it
> > makes sense, or *not* being able to do so.
> 
> > So, in conclusion: boo to modules! Q.E.D. :)
> 
> I think you're killing the baby prior to throwing it out with the bathwater...

Of course! To do otherwise is sheer wanton cruelty!!!

I'm still riffing against Pythonicness, mostly. From what I recall, you've
got it right in breaking up (er..modularizing?) various sorts of
modularity. I haven't worked through if I agree with your partitions and I
know I don't know how I want to handle them.

Hmm. Another randomness: Files and filesystems stink as much as
modules! And for many of the same reasons. You stick things in files and
then stick files in directories only you add links here and then and have
recent lists and special directories and bleah! Of course, the world wide
sea o' broken links barely sorted in my history, bookmarks, search engine,
brain, scraps of paper, and finger muscle memory is wretched
too! Computers! Faugh! We need more pretty pictures that take up screen
real estate!!!!


> > P.S. This message is *all* Lex's fault. Direct all blame and blows to
> > him! ;)
> 
> certainly...

Cheers,
Bijan "Tripmaster" Parsia.

P.S. "Les", "Lex"....and you think there *isn't* a conspiracy!!?
P.S.S. Clearly, I'm just trying to get poor Andrew back into the debate!