Squeak-dev Digest, Vol 22, Issue 20

Alejandro F. Reimondo aleReimondo at smalltalking.net
Mon Oct 18 06:08:12 UTC 2004


Hi Andreas,
>And, by the same logic, you don't want to employ testers
> to test the software you write since that would make the
> developers write code with more bugs in it ;)

When you build a system with objects you can test during the
building process.
When your people "write code" and do not work with objects yet,
it is important to work on the training/human side trying to
teach the group to work in a more constructive manner.
Work in a declarative manner force the group to work
only in an object ORIENTED way, but not with objects
in an ambience.
During the construction of a system in an ambience,
the group must follow rules to let the system grow(and
contract/factorize) as a reflex of the advance in a
 domain comprehension but doing without loosing system stability; so
you test all the time that your system is stable (not for
perfection, but for stability).
Than, readability and reuse are consecuences of your investment.

>Not implementing features to help developers in fear
> of them getting more lazy is really, really stupid.

Lazy?
I prefer to train people to work with responsibility
and not to think that the objects has the responsibility :-)

>You are not replacing anything,
>you're adding guidance to help developers write correct code.

Yes, I try to make the group more robust in their attitudes.
I do not feel that "replacement" of tools or people guaranties
the success in the medium or long term.

One related topic we must discuss is the selection of "a type".
Most of the times, the observed type is affected by subjectivity.
As an example, the argument of type TSortable was seen as
aMagnitude under my point of view. [*]
How we plan to manage this king of subjectivity?
(types of objects are affected by the observer, the
context of application, and degree of prior training [already
known types])

cheers,
Ale.

[*] The loosing of presition can be related with "expectation of use", and
reduction of language as a product of the naming efforts.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Nilsson" <wahboh at mac.com>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: Squeak-dev Digest, Vol 22, Issue 20


And, by the same logic, you don't want to employ testers to test the
software you write since that would make the developers write code with
more bugs in it ;)
Not implementing features to help developers in fear of them getting
more lazy is really, really stupid.  You are not replacing anything,
you're adding guidance to help developers write correct code.

/Adde

On 2004-10-17, at 21.09, Alejandro F. Reimondo wrote:

>> For me I would like to get something that tell me:
>> this argument receives the messages of TSortable
>
> Names of arguments are used to guidance in the type
>
> of the arguments a message requires.
>
> Imagine that we have a powerful annotation type system,
>
> and people loose the interest of giving good names
>
> to arguments...
>
> Something *very* important in Smalltalk training is the
>
> transmission of community rules that must not be missing
>
> nor replaced by sophisms that solve (only?) the technical
>
> part of the constrains involved in training people.
>
> If you find a message with requires an argument that is
>
> a collection, but do not specify if the elements must
>
> be magnitudes... open a workspace, try it and look
>
> what happen (it is the best choice for long term
>
> training of adults, and provably not the best for
>
> children).
>
> cheers,
>
> Ale.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stéphane ducasse" <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch>
> To: "Andres Valloud" <sqrmax at cox.net>; "The general-purpose Squeak
> developers list" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 9:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[6]: Squeak-dev Digest, Vol 22, Issue 20
>
>
>> andres
>>
>> there is a difference between a type system and a typed-language.
>> The type system does not have to specify the language semantics. A
>> type
>> system
>> is just a set of rules that extract information from source or
>> execution.
>>
>> Now what we learned is that:
>> type system are good to support understanding
>> typed languages gets in your way
>>
>> but you can have a type system to help annotating your dynamically
>> typed language.
>> There is no anatgonism. This is just that we should be clear on what
>> we
>> want to get.
>> For me I would like to get something that tell me:
>> this argument receives the messages of TSortable
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> On 17 oct. 04, at 07:33, Andres Valloud wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Andreas,
>>>
>>> Saturday, October 16, 2004, 2:50:22 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> AR> I respect your opinions but please don't put things into my mouth
>>> that I
>>> AR> haven't said or meant.
>>>
>>> I did not put words in your mouth.  I expressed what I understood you
>>> meant.  I'd like to know how I didn't get what you wrote.
>>>
>>>>> From another point of view: Smalltalk's point was to teach kids,
>>>>> and
>>>>> it seems to me it was important to make it late bound.  Therefore I
>>>>> don't expect kids to understand the far reaching consequences of
>>>>> the
>>>>> static type system you propose.
>>> AR> But you are aware that eToys do have a static type system, are
>>> AR> you? It seems as if kids don't have that many problems with
>>> static
>>> AR> type systems as you are claiming.
>>>
>>> There was no eToys back in the 70s.  I thought the point of Smalltalk
>>> was to let kids write Smalltalk code.
>>>
>>> While I am not familiar with the static type system in eToys, I am
>>> not
>>> seeing how a static type system in eToys would be similar at all with
>>> a static type system for Smalltalk code either.
>>>
>>> Andres.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list