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

[Igor Stasenko]

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.

> 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.