[Vm-dev] [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format

[H. Hirzel]

On 6/14/12, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 June 2012 18:59, Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> (final comment)
>>
>> On 14 June 2012 14:58, Andreas Raab <Andreas.Raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It should be possible to disagree and still keep the discussion
>>> civilized. Please?
>>>
>>>
>>> My apologies. It wasn't meant to be uncivilized - just a bit of a gut
>>> reaction to "you know, you should just make your application a little
>>> simpler, then your need for immutability would go away" (*rolling my
>>> eyes*) I know comments like that from some of our so-called Engineering
>>> VPs in my last life and I might react a bit allergic to them. Apologies
>>> again.
>>>
>>
>> I was trying to discuss a better solutions which may not require
>> immutability. I did not wanted to teach you about programming
>> whatever, but to point out that there is no silver bullet: a problems
>> in your design won't magically disappear once you will have
>> immutability.
>>
>> But your reaction can be expressed as: (rolling eyes) what are you
>> talking about?!?!
>>
>>
>> What my rolling eyes mean is that the argument is non sequitor.
>
> I don't know what is sequitor, and i cannot find it in
> vocabulary/translator so i cannot understand.

Maybe you can use Google. For me it is the third entry  :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

HJH

>> The need for immutability is independent of the premise about how complex
>> the system is, therefore the the argument is a fallacy. Anyway, I'm done
>> here. Over and out.
>>
>
> agree, but this is exactly what i tried to show you when you stated:
> ---------
> The main thing that immutability fixes is to prevent accidental
> modifications of objects thought to be immutable (method literals for
> example), which when they happen are *extremely* hard to find.
> ---------
> If something extremely hard to find -> i understand this as a complex
> system which hard to manage and reason about (otherwise why it would
> be extremely hard?)
>
> So, as i understood, you advocating the need for immutability by
> demonstrating how it can help to find flaws in design in *complex*
> systems..
> And i agree that it helps, but found this advocacy argument very weak,
> because immutability offers almost nothing in terms of having less
> complex systems.
> And especially, when
> "The need for immutability is independent of the premise about how
> complex the system is"
>
> so why we need it, again?
> :)
>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas
>>
>> there's nothing better. period (end rolling eyes).
>> so i stand off.. i cannot continue discussing with such stubborn
>> attitude.
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>   - Andreas
>>>
>>> I trust Eliot will take all this with a lump of his preferred mineral and
>>> come up with something good ;)
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>>
>>> --
>>> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
>>> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
>>>
>>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko.
>