If your students have problems to grasp the concept of pool dictionaries then how do they deal with mathematics and computer science?
Given enough time, no problem. But time in class and outside is limited enough as it is.
No johan even if I multiply by two the amount of time you have you will not spend time on such uninteresting concept when we have so much more beautiful concepts to show.
You still have the freedom to use pool dictionaries. They are still there. They are hidden for the sake of simplicity for some students. I want my pool dictionaries back :-D
For simplicity of everybody that is learning the language, and everybody that writes a class without pool dicts. Note that they are still there! Just write pooldictionaries: in the next-to-last line and done.
Obscuring things is sometimes a good design strategy, but here there is a well known artefact breaking tradition here, that isnât something light. And the proposed alternative design is far to be better (read: have been proven itself worth of its added burden of breaking that tradition)
So if we cannot break tradition then Traits should never have been introduced? Traits are a different kind of thing. They didnât cripple existing elements in Pharo. The only problem was the lack of tool support when they were introduced. You are comparing apples and oranges.
I repeat. Nothing is broken. Pool dictionaries are still there. So the comparison stands.
Yeah, youâre not the only one with that perception.
This move sucks. It allegedly solved a problem that allegedly happens to some by creating a problem for almost everybody.
I have an issue with your "problem for almost everybody" statement. Pooldictionaries are rarely used. Look at the classes in the image. Can you argument why this then is a problem for almost everybody ? I do not see how you get to this conclusion. For generations of Smalltalk newbies it was possible to either grasp the concept or ignore it. Why do you need to change this without a real solution for those who want to use them? In my eyes itâs an absolute minority of Pharo users who arenât able to understand the concept.
The problem is not understanding the pooldictionaries. The problem is the people that use them. Are you saying that it is a problem for everybody that the template is now without a line that they do NOT use? In that case we should not touch anything and not make any changes.
:)
This half-assed non-solution is the same solution as for Traits, essentially. Do you have the same issue with Traits?
Again you are comparing apples and oranges. Traits didnât take away anything but brought something new. You took away something.
I repeat. Pool dictionaries are still there. I did not take away anything. Essentially I am doing the same as with traits: if you use them you see them, if not, not. The comparison stands.
Some people do not understand that in EBNF you can have optional parts :)
BTW how do your students cope with Traits? They must be completely overwhelmed. And how do you teach the class hierarchy and meta classes?
Yes, I do teach them because I have the *time* to do it. I have the time to do it because I can focus on the essential and not lose it explaining obscure features.
YES like a good teacher always does.
Please see previous mail.
I am a close lurker of the mailing lists and I completely missed it.
Sent today at 10:37 AM chilean time, a few minutes before I sent the mail you are replying to. Same subject as this mail. For completeness, here is the content:
For what it's worth: this was asked on the users list (some months ago). There were about 5 replies and they were positive. I do not recall having any negative replies.
I think that asking much more than that is hard, given the nature of mailing lists and the comity being busy with many other things.
Also, having learned about user studies and performed a few (for this "science" thing I'm supposed to be doing), I can tell you that getting a really representative group of users together is nearly impossible in the scenario we are in. So anything you can get out of an inquiry will just be 'some people say: OK'. Nothing is guaranteed about other people. Which is just what is happening here ! ;-)
On Jan 31, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Sebastian Sastre <sebastian@flowingconcept.com> wrote:
Lets says it convinces youâ¦
Time to be skeptic. Test.
Test with someone else. Tests it with 5 guys and ask how they feel about it.
Hear.
---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <---
Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile