Discussion:
Will this help the rest of the world get it?
(too old to reply)
Andy Bower
2012-03-21 16:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Folks,

You may have seen this before but I only came across it recently:

http://instanceof.me/post/18455380137/inventing-on-principle-by-bret-victor

His idea of a moral stance is a great one but, perhaps more immediately
interesting from the Smalltalk point of view, are the code demos that
illustrate his principle of Immediate Connection.

The interesting thing for me was hearing the audience gasp and buzz when
he demonstrates various features that we've (virtually) been used to in
Smalltalk for years. Not only does he suggest the need for an "immediate
connection" but he also alludes to what is wrong with the current idea
of programming languages. Talking of the way we work now (at around 2:55):

"Most of my time is spent working in a text editor blindly, without an
immediate connection to, this thing, which is what I'm trying to make"

What Smalltalk gives us is the object-model, described on previous
occasions as a "sea of live objects", which is really the thing we're
trying to create. The program source is NOT what we are trying to make,
it is simply a temporary manifestation of it.

Nearly everyone nowadays is used to using property inspectors to
dynamically change the aspects of items in a word processor or graphics
document. Why shouldn't code just be treated the same as any other
aspect of the "thing we are trying to make"; the code editor just being
another property inspector such that any program changes are seen
immediately and dynamically? I suspect that if, every time you changed a
font in Word, you had to re-open the document to see the change, you'd
throw up your hands in horror. How then have we managed to live so long
with the ubiquitous Edit-Compile-Run cycle?

With more demonstrations like Mr Victor's maybe a few more people will
start to "get" what Smalltalkers have been beating on about for years.

Best regards

Andy Bower
alfonso
2012-03-22 06:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Not really. I'd say the rest of the world got it in the past then got rid
of it. My area used to have a fair amount of ST in the 90's but it is gone.

The growth trend is negative:

http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=smalltalk&l=&relative=1

. . . and should ST come back to my area then I'll give it a looksee. The
lesson from this?

'Companies often do not make decisions based on technical merit.'

. . . but that has always been true.

-a
nicolas cellier
2012-03-22 20:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I found what industry wants:

http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=basic&l=

Maybe not the language, but basic skills. Would advanced skills just
frighten the hierarchy? ;)

Nicolas
Not really.  I'd say the rest of the world got it in the past then got rid
of it.  My area used to have a fair amount of ST in the 90's but it is gone.
http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=smalltalk&l=&relative=1
. . . and should ST come back to my area then I'll give it a looksee.  The
lesson from this?
'Companies often do not make decisions based on technical merit.'
. . . but that has always been true.
-a
Friedrich Dominicus
2012-03-23 06:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by nicolas cellier
http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=basic&l=
Maybe not the language, but basic skills. Would advanced skills just
frighten the hierarchy? ;)
Well I'm the hierachy here and I can tell you the only thint that
frightens me are copy & paste programmers and those you can see are not
thinking while working.

Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
fjern
2012-03-22 20:50:11 UTC
Permalink
At a conference back in 1982 or 1983
I saw a video demonstration of smalltalk and my 'jaw dropped all the way
down to my chest'.

Could write a lot of my experience and what I later did in this area.
But my main point in the context is that it is a problem of paradigms
and the very hard job it is to change them.
And Alphonso is right, the technical evolution is driven by investors
hoping for big returns, and most of them have no ideas of what to do so
they follows the latest hype.

I recall what ObjectArts have somewhere in its homepage:

Howard Aiken said, "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If the
ideas are any good you'll have to ram them down their throats".

regards
Soren
alfonso
2012-03-23 02:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by fjern
the technical evolution is driven by investors
What I've seen are large companies moving up the chain of command to a
non-technical guy and making a financial pitch, 'If you move to this
language, we will also give you x, y, and z and discount it.' In one small
company MS offered money for them to restart a project using c#, which they
took and restarted. For right now, it is as if someone used a big can of ST
repellant in my area of the world, because there is nada.

-a
quiet_lad
2012-03-26 05:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by alfonso
Post by fjern
the technical evolution is driven by investors
What I've seen are large companies moving up the chain of command to a
non-technical guy and making a financial pitch, 'If you move to this
language, we will also give you x, y, and z and discount it.'  In one small
company MS offered money for them to restart a project using c#, which they
took and restarted.  For right now, it is as if someone used a big can of ST
repellant in my area of the world, because there is nada.
-a
sad a competing smalltalk can't give a demo and say hey give me some
resources and we will have something much nicer.

quiet_lad
2012-03-26 05:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Bower
Folks,
http://instanceof.me/post/18455380137/inventing-on-principle-by-bret-...
His idea of a moral stance is a great one but, perhaps more immediately
interesting from the Smalltalk point of view, are the code demos that
illustrate his principle of Immediate Connection.
The interesting thing for me was hearing the audience gasp and buzz when
he demonstrates various features that we've (virtually) been used to in
Smalltalk for years. Not only does he suggest the need for an "immediate
connection" but he also alludes to what is wrong with the current idea
"Most of my time is spent working in a text editor blindly, without an
immediate connection to, this thing, which is what I'm trying to make"
What Smalltalk gives us is the object-model, described on previous
occasions as a "sea of live objects", which is really the thing we're
trying to create. The program source is NOT what we are trying to make,
it is simply a temporary manifestation of it.
Nearly everyone nowadays is used to using property inspectors to
dynamically change the aspects of items in a word processor or graphics
document. Why shouldn't code just be treated the same as any other
aspect of the "thing we are trying to make"; the code editor just being
another property inspector such that any program changes are seen
immediately and dynamically? I suspect that if, every time you changed a
font in Word, you had to re-open the document to see the change, you'd
throw up your hands in horror. How then have we managed to live so long
with the ubiquitous Edit-Compile-Run cycle?
With more demonstrations like Mr Victor's maybe a few more people will
start to "get" what Smalltalkers have been beating on about for years.
Best regards
Andy Bower
cool
quiet_lad
2012-03-26 05:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Bower
Folks,
http://instanceof.me/post/18455380137/inventing-on-principle-by-bret-...
His idea of a moral stance is a great one but, perhaps more immediately
interesting from the Smalltalk point of view, are the code demos that
illustrate his principle of Immediate Connection.
The interesting thing for me was hearing the audience gasp and buzz when
he demonstrates various features that we've (virtually) been used to in
Smalltalk for years. Not only does he suggest the need for an "immediate
connection" but he also alludes to what is wrong with the current idea
"Most of my time is spent working in a text editor blindly, without an
immediate connection to, this thing, which is what I'm trying to make"
What Smalltalk gives us is the object-model, described on previous
occasions as a "sea of live objects", which is really the thing we're
trying to create. The program source is NOT what we are trying to make,
it is simply a temporary manifestation of it.
Nearly everyone nowadays is used to using property inspectors to
dynamically change the aspects of items in a word processor or graphics
document. Why shouldn't code just be treated the same as any other
aspect of the "thing we are trying to make"; the code editor just being
another property inspector such that any program changes are seen
immediately and dynamically? I suspect that if, every time you changed a
font in Word, you had to re-open the document to see the change, you'd
throw up your hands in horror. How then have we managed to live so long
with the ubiquitous Edit-Compile-Run cycle?
With more demonstrations like Mr Victor's maybe a few more people will
start to "get" what Smalltalkers have been beating on about for years.
Best regards
Andy Bower
very c00l
Loading...