October 2017 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by Pavel Krivanek

2017-10-20 10:20 GMT+02:00 Marten Feldtmann <itlists(a)schrievkrom.de>: > I do not want to spoil the party (perhaps I've done this already) - but > has anyone done a serious inspection of this number: 67%. > > They have interviewed 64000 persons and 67% of the people should "love" > Smalltalk? Come on, that seems to be not possible. Perhaps 67% of the > user already using Smalltalk "love" that. > As far as I understand it, the question was different. They asked, if you use Smalltalk, would you like to use it the next year too (or something like that). Then the number makes more sense. -- Pavel > > By the way - the most loved platform is Linux (69%) ... > > > Marten > > Am 20.10.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Paulo R. Dellani: > > > > > The second most loved language by 67% of developers surveyed cannot > simply > > be ruled out because of unfounded concerns. (Thanks again for the > > > -- > Marten Feldtmann > >

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by Paulo R. Dellani

I also do not believe my eyes: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017#most-loved-dreaded-and-wanted On 10/20/2017 10:20 AM, Marten Feldtmann wrote: > I do not want to spoil the party (perhaps I've done this already) - but > has anyone done a serious inspection of this number: 67%. > > They have interviewed 64000 persons and 67% of the people should "love" > Smalltalk? Come on, that seems to be not possible. Perhaps 67% of the > user already using Smalltalk "love" that. > > By the way - the most loved platform is Linux (69%) ... > > > Marten > > Am 20.10.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Paulo R. Dellani: > >> The second most loved language by 67% of developers surveyed cannot simply >> be ruled out because of unfounded concerns. (Thanks again for the >

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by Marten Feldtmann

I do not want to spoil the party (perhaps I've done this already) - but has anyone done a serious inspection of this number: 67%. They have interviewed 64000 persons and 67% of the people should "love" Smalltalk? Come on, that seems to be not possible. Perhaps 67% of the user already using Smalltalk "love" that. By the way - the most loved platform is Linux (69%) ... Marten Am 20.10.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Paulo R. Dellani: > > The second most loved language by 67% of developers surveyed cannot simply > be ruled out because of unfounded concerns. (Thanks again for the -- Marten Feldtmann

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by Paulo R. Dellani

I think you have nailed it, Joachim! The development environment is per se very productive and easy to use and learn but at the moment you need something that isn't present in your code library, things can get very hard. Well, that's not really new and not only a problem that concerns Smalltalk, but with the greater number of developers in other languages chances are that someone already wrote some code concerning your needs. Well I will go back to my coding here now ;-) Cheers, Paulo On 10/20/2017 09:23 AM, jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de wrote: > First of all: I'd say the question itself is not a question but an > excuse. I am not arguing there are enough Smalltalkers or cheap ones. > But I think the question is just a way of saying "we don't want to do > it for reasons that we ourselves cannot really express". If you are a > good developer, learning Smalltalk is easy. If you are a good > developer you've heard the sentence "we've taken the goos parts from > x,y,z and Smalltalk" at least twice a year. So you most likely would > like to learn it anyways. > > A shortage of developers doesn't exist. What exists is an > unwillingness of companies to get people trained in a technology. If > Smalltalk was cool and great in their opinion, they wouldn't care. > It's that simple. As a consultant, I've heard that argument so often. > Not ferom Startups, but from insurance companies, Banks or Car > manufacturers who spend millions on useless, endless meetings and > stuff instead of just hiring somebody to teach a couple of developers > Smalltalk. It's just a lie: the shortage of Smalltalk developers is > not a problem. > > And, to be honest: what is it we actually are better in by using > Smalltalk? > Can we build cool looking web apps in extremely short time? No. > Can we build mobile Apps with little effort? No. > Does our Smalltalk ship lots of great libraries for all kinds of > things that are not availabel in similar quality in any other language? > Are we lying when we say we are so extremely over-productive as > compared to other languages? > > I know, all that live debugging stuff and such is great and it is much > faster to find & fix a bug in Smalltalk than in any other environment > I've used so far. But that is really only true for business code. When > I need to connect to things or want to build a modern GUI or a web > application with a great look&feel, I am nowhere near productive, > because I simply have to build my own stuff or learn how to use other > external resources. If I want to build something for a mobile device, > I will only hear that somebody somewhere has done it before. No docs, > no proof, no ready-made tool for me. > > > Shortage of developers is not really the problem. If Smalltalk was as > cool as we like to make ourselves believe, this problem would be > non-existent. If somebody took out their iPad and told an audience: > "We did this in Smalltalk in 40% of the time it would have taken in > Swift", and if that something was a must-have for people, things would > be much easier. But nobody has. > > > I am absolutely over-exaggerating, because I make my living with an > SaaS product written in Smalltalk (not Pharo). I have lots of fun with > Smalltalk and - as you - am convince that many parts of what we've > done so far would've taken much longer or even be impossible in other > languages. But the advantage was eaten by our extremely steep learning > curve for web technologies and for building something that works > almost as well as tools like Angular or jQuery Mobile. > > Smalltalk is cool, and the day somebody shows me something like > Google's flutter in Smalltalk, I am ready to bet a lot on a bright > future for Smalltalk. But until then, I'd say these arguments about > productivity are just us trying to make ourselves believe we're still > the top of the food chain. We've done that for almost thirty years now > and still aren't ready to stop it. But we've been lying to ourselves > and still do so. > > I don't think there is a point in discussing about the usefulness of a > language using an argument like the number or ready-made developers. > That is just an argument they know you can't win. The real question is > and should be: what is the benefit of using Smalltalk. Our > productivity argument is a lie as soon as we have to build something > that uses or runs on technology that has been invented after 1990. > > > Okay, shoot ;-) > > Joachim > >

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by jtuchel＠objektfabrik.de

First of all: I'd say the question itself is not a question but an excuse. I am not arguing there are enough Smalltalkers or cheap ones. But I think the question is just a way of saying "we don't want to do it for reasons that we ourselves cannot really express". If you are a good developer, learning Smalltalk is easy. If you are a good developer you've heard the sentence "we've taken the goos parts from x,y,z and Smalltalk" at least twice a year. So you most likely would like to learn it anyways. A shortage of developers doesn't exist. What exists is an unwillingness of companies to get people trained in a technology. If Smalltalk was cool and great in their opinion, they wouldn't care. It's that simple. As a consultant, I've heard that argument so often. Not ferom Startups, but from insurance companies, Banks or Car manufacturers who spend millions on useless, endless meetings and stuff instead of just hiring somebody to teach a couple of developers Smalltalk. It's just a lie: the shortage of Smalltalk developers is not a problem. And, to be honest: what is it we actually are better in by using Smalltalk? Can we build cool looking web apps in extremely short time? No. Can we build mobile Apps with little effort? No. Does our Smalltalk ship lots of great libraries for all kinds of things that are not availabel in similar quality in any other language? Are we lying when we say we are so extremely over-productive as compared to other languages? I know, all that live debugging stuff and such is great and it is much faster to find & fix a bug in Smalltalk than in any other environment I've used so far. But that is really only true for business code. When I need to connect to things or want to build a modern GUI or a web application with a great look&feel, I am nowhere near productive, because I simply have to build my own stuff or learn how to use other external resources. If I want to build something for a mobile device, I will only hear that somebody somewhere has done it before. No docs, no proof, no ready-made tool for me. Shortage of developers is not really the problem. If Smalltalk was as cool as we like to make ourselves believe, this problem would be non-existent. If somebody took out their iPad and told an audience: "We did this in Smalltalk in 40% of the time it would have taken in Swift", and if that something was a must-have for people, things would be much easier. But nobody has. I am absolutely over-exaggerating, because I make my living with an SaaS product written in Smalltalk (not Pharo). I have lots of fun with Smalltalk and - as you - am convince that many parts of what we've done so far would've taken much longer or even be impossible in other languages. But the advantage was eaten by our extremely steep learning curve for web technologies and for building something that works almost as well as tools like Angular or jQuery Mobile. Smalltalk is cool, and the day somebody shows me something like Google's flutter in Smalltalk, I am ready to bet a lot on a bright future for Smalltalk. But until then, I'd say these arguments about productivity are just us trying to make ourselves believe we're still the top of the food chain. We've done that for almost thirty years now and still aren't ready to stop it. But we've been lying to ourselves and still do so. I don't think there is a point in discussing about the usefulness of a language using an argument like the number or ready-made developers. That is just an argument they know you can't win. The real question is and should be: what is the benefit of using Smalltalk. Our productivity argument is a lie as soon as we have to build something that uses or runs on technology that has been invented after 1990. Okay, shoot ;-) Joachim -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de Fliederweg 1Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â http://www.objektfabrik.de D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0Â Â Â Â Â Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by Paulo R. Dellani

Dear Ben, Jimmie, Stephane, Tim, Dimitris, Marten, Davorin, Stephan, Sebastian and James, thank you for your feedback! Your excellent replies will sure help me with my "Smalltalk Argument". Obviously the language cannot be employed to efficiently implement solutions for problems in all domains, but it cannot simply be ruled out just because it is not so visible as other languages clamoring for the spotlight, as Jimmie pointed out. So far I got good results that can talk for themselves thanks to Pharo/Smalltalk. So the problem here, I believe, is really Smalltalk not being the "cool kid in town", which leads to a misperception of the language by the non-versed. This can be certainly be blamed to the lack of a good business oriented OSS Smalltalk years ago, as Ben guessed, but certainly there are other factors, which are not the scope of this discussion. The fact that a good OO-software developer can learn and start to get productive in Smalltalk in a relatively short amount of time, as pointed out by several of you, will make a good argument against the concerns of my colleagues here, which are mainly non-software developers. And surely the willingness to learn a new language is a sign to be looked at in a candidate, as pointed by you too. The second most loved language by 67% of developers surveyed cannot simply be ruled out because of unfounded concerns. (Thanks again for the information, Jimmie). I think there is really a great potential here, and surely there is a greater pool of developer candidates to "draw from" than one can initially imagine/see. Cheers, Paulo On 10/20/2017 12:17 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Paulo R. Dellani <dellani(a)pobox.com > <mailto:dellani@pobox.com>> wrote: > > Dear all, > > after using Smalltalk for several years I developed a passion for the > language (how not to?), and Pharo is just so great to develop with. > So thank you guys for keeping this wonderful project running. > > Unfortunately, it is not easy to always point out why Smalltalk > should be employed as "main development language" in a team > or for a project. In the last discussion of this sort I was confronted > with the question "where are we going to get new smalltalk > developers if our startup grows or if you go?". Well, I had no > good answer to that. What would have you answered? > > Cheers, > > Paulo > > > > When Smalltalk comes up on reddit, news.ycombinator, etc, > I often see comments "Used Smalltalk 10 years ago, loved it, but not > in my day job for years ..." > The guess the lack of a good business oriented OSS Smalltalk years ago > may be to blame. > Only supposition, but with the long history of Smalltalker, the pool > to draw from may be greater than first apparent. > The main problem may be that these people are not searching for > Smalltalk jobs due to the perceived availability of jobs. > > > There would obviously be some lag, but for longer term planning, talk > to your local education providers about introducing Smalltalk as the > "best" environment for teaching OO, > and then take the talented students from there.Â Consider contacting > the academic partners here... > http://consortium.pharo.org/ > > > Another approach depending on the project structure might be to "just" > prototype in Smalltalk (because its highly productive to explore a > domain with itsÂ built in data persistence) > and per Fred Brooks plan to throw it away to cleanly implement in a > mainstream language once you "know" what needs to be done.Â Â > I remember seeing one case reported here that the prototype worked so > well that the client didn't bother with the second step. > > > cheers -ben

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

by Jimmie Houchin

Absolutely. I have contemplated giving it a try. But when I go look at the mailing list, it looks like such a lonely place. I still might give it a go. It looks interesting. Jimmie On 10/19/2017 05:20 PM, Ben Coman wrote: > btw, are you aware that Newspeak is developed on top of the CogVM that > Pharo, Squeak, Cuis all share? > cheers -ben > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com > <mailto:jlhouchin@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I watched this video a year ago and was intrigued. I have not > thought about it deeply and do not know consequences of this > model. However, Gilad is a smart man who has thought deeply about > these things and has experienced consequences as a language > designer. But it does sound interesting and I wonder if it would > potentially be a solution to the namespace or modularity problems. > > https://youtu.be/pM0Hz4pFDZM > > He is talking about Newspeak in 2016 and what I refer to is its > use of Nested Classes. > > No Global Namespace > Â Â Â No Global Variables > Â Â Â No Pool Variables > Â Â Â No Class Variables > Â Â Â No Class Instance Variables > > I have no idea if it would work for Pharo or what would be > involved in implementing such. Or even if the community or leaders > would even care to explore that direction. I have not seen it > discussed here. > > Just wanted to toss his discussion of these ideas into the arena > of ideas for Pharo. > > Jimmie > > > > On 10/13/2017 07:53 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote: > > 2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name > <mailto:norbert@hartl.name>>: > > Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan > <stephan(a)stack.nl <mailto:stephan@stack.nl>>: > > On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: > > Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious > issues. I won't take > someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite > those faithfully. > > Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are > about modularisation > > +1 > > +1 to this as well. > > Having modularization is like having security, very hard to > add them > later if you didn't include it in the original design. > > I'm using VisualWorks these days, and I find its namespaces > something > more of a hassle than a real use. > > If we could name Classes with a dot, that could solve most of what > namespaces are used for in practice: avoiding name colissions. > That's why most of the popular frameworks have prefixes like > Zn, WA, > RB, and so on and so forth. But now I'm used to prefixes, I > don't need > them. :) > > Modularity is a different beast, if you look at how some > modules work > in JS, like AMD, you see that in practice they avoid collisions by > importin what they need from a module, and assign it to a > "namespace" > (it is not, but works as such), so they get modules first, and > namespacing later. > > Regards, > > Esteban. > > > >

Oct. 20, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

by Ben Coman

btw, are you aware that Newspeak is developed on top of the CogVM that Pharo, Squeak, Cuis all share? cheers -ben On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I watched this video a year ago and was intrigued. I have not thought > about it deeply and do not know consequences of this model. However, Gilad > is a smart man who has thought deeply about these things and has > experienced consequences as a language designer. But it does sound > interesting and I wonder if it would potentially be a solution to the > namespace or modularity problems. > > https://youtu.be/pM0Hz4pFDZM > > He is talking about Newspeak in 2016 and what I refer to is its use of > Nested Classes. > > No Global Namespace > No Global Variables > No Pool Variables > No Class Variables > No Class Instance Variables > > I have no idea if it would work for Pharo or what would be involved in > implementing such. Or even if the community or leaders would even care to > explore that direction. I have not seen it discussed here. > > Just wanted to toss his discussion of these ideas into the arena of ideas > for Pharo. > > Jimmie > > > > On 10/13/2017 07:53 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote: > >> 2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: >> >>> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan <stephan(a)stack.nl>: >>>> >>>> On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: >>>> >>>>> Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take >>>>> someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite those faithfully. >>>>> >>>> Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are about >>>> modularisation >>>> >>>> +1 >>> >> +1 to this as well. >> >> Having modularization is like having security, very hard to add them >> later if you didn't include it in the original design. >> >> I'm using VisualWorks these days, and I find its namespaces something >> more of a hassle than a real use. >> >> If we could name Classes with a dot, that could solve most of what >> namespaces are used for in practice: avoiding name colissions. >> That's why most of the popular frameworks have prefixes like Zn, WA, >> RB, and so on and so forth. But now I'm used to prefixes, I don't need >> them. :) >> >> Modularity is a different beast, if you look at how some modules work >> in JS, like AMD, you see that in practice they avoid collisions by >> importin what they need from a module, and assign it to a "namespace" >> (it is not, but works as such), so they get modules first, and >> namespacing later. >> >> Regards, >> >> Esteban. >> >> > >

Oct. 19, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Smalltalk Argument

by Ben Coman

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Paulo R. Dellani <dellani(a)pobox.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > after using Smalltalk for several years I developed a passion for the > language (how not to?), and Pharo is just so great to develop with. > So thank you guys for keeping this wonderful project running. > > Unfortunately, it is not easy to always point out why Smalltalk > should be employed as "main development language" in a team > or for a project. In the last discussion of this sort I was confronted > with the question "where are we going to get new smalltalk > developers if our startup grows or if you go?". Well, I had no > good answer to that. What would have you answered? > > Cheers, > > Paulo > > > When Smalltalk comes up on reddit, news.ycombinator, etc, I often see comments "Used Smalltalk 10 years ago, loved it, but not in my day job for years ..." The guess the lack of a good business oriented OSS Smalltalk years ago may be to blame. Only supposition, but with the long history of Smalltalker, the pool to draw from may be greater than first apparent. The main problem may be that these people are not searching for Smalltalk jobs due to the perceived availability of jobs. There would obviously be some lag, but for longer term planning, talk to your local education providers about introducing Smalltalk as the "best" environment for teaching OO, and then take the talented students from there. Consider contacting the academic partners here... http://consortium.pharo.org/ Another approach depending on the project structure might be to "just" prototype in Smalltalk (because its highly productive to explore a domain with its built in data persistence) and per Fred Brooks plan to throw it away to cleanly implement in a mainstream language once you "know" what needs to be done. I remember seeing one case reported here that the prototype worked so well that the client didn't bother with the second step. cheers -ben

Oct. 19, 2017

Re: [Pharo-users] Namespaces (was Re: Behold Pharo: The Modern Smalltalk)

by Jimmie Houchin

I watched this video a year ago and was intrigued. I have not thought about it deeply and do not know consequences of this model. However, Gilad is a smart man who has thought deeply about these things and has experienced consequences as a language designer. But it does sound interesting and I wonder if it would potentially be a solution to the namespace or modularity problems. https://youtu.be/pM0Hz4pFDZM He is talking about Newspeak in 2016 and what I refer to is its use of Nested Classes. No Global Namespace Â Â Â No Global Variables Â Â Â No Pool Variables Â Â Â No Class Variables Â Â Â No Class Instance Variables I have no idea if it would work for Pharo or what would be involved in implementing such. Or even if the community or leaders would even care to explore that direction. I have not seen it discussed here. Just wanted to toss his discussion of these ideas into the arena of ideas for Pharo. Jimmie On 10/13/2017 07:53 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote: > 2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: >>> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan <stephan(a)stack.nl>: >>> >>> On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: >>>> Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take >>>> someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite those faithfully. >>> Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are about modularisation >>> >> +1 > +1 to this as well. > > Having modularization is like having security, very hard to add them > later if you didn't include it in the original design. > > I'm using VisualWorks these days, and I find its namespaces something > more of a hassle than a real use. > > If we could name Classes with a dot, that could solve most of what > namespaces are used for in practice: avoiding name colissions. > That's why most of the popular frameworks have prefixes like Zn, WA, > RB, and so on and so forth. But now I'm used to prefixes, I don't need > them. :) > > Modularity is a different beast, if you look at how some modules work > in JS, like AMD, you see that in practice they avoid collisions by > importin what they need from a module, and assign it to a "namespace" > (it is not, but works as such), so they get modules first, and > namespacing later. > > Regards, > > Esteban. >

Oct. 19, 2017