how to become modular

Craig Latta craig at netjam.org
Thu Jul 12 02:11:26 UTC 2007


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.

[3] http://netjam.org/spoon

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list