October 2010 - Esug-list - lists.esug.org

Re: [Esug-list] Few thoughts about Google Summer of Code

by Richard Sargent

I'll second Gilad's thoughts. I am familiar with VisualWorks and VA, as well as no longer existent dialects like Digitalk's. However, the several times I have tried to "get into Squeak", I've landed in a UI that doesn't work like those I am familiar with, so it seems much more difficult to learn "the Squeak way". The only tutorial was about basic Smalltalk syntax and offered no guidance for Squeak. Perhaps there are some "getting started with Squeak" guides, but Squeak itself doesn't lead you to them. We can get any number of people to try a given Smalltalk implementation, but once they get there, we need to ensure they can get around in it (if they already think Smalltalk) and can learn how the Smalltalk way differs from what they are used to otherwise. Like many people, once I account for sleep, family life, and work, there isn't a lot of time left for struggling to learn something new, no matter how popular or interesting it seems to be. We need to reduce the effort to get over the first hurdles. -----Original Message----- From: esug-list-bounces(a)lists.esug.org [mailto:esug-list-bounces@lists.esug.org] On Behalf Of Gilad Bracha Sent: October-30-10 7:09 PM To: Geert Claes Cc: esug-list(a)lists.esug.org Subject: Re: [Esug-list] Few thoughts about Google Summer of Code Hi Geert, Rob and others, On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Geert Claes wrote: > > We do have Newspeak listed on http://www.world.st/implementations so everyone > should make some time :) Thanks for that and for the good intentions! If I may, I'll make one more observation. This thread (and similar ones, oft repeated among Smalltalkers) bemoans the fact that others do not see the beauty of Smalltalk. What I liked about this thread was that Smalltalkers were engaged in serious self examination. There seemed to be a realization that some things need real changes. Perhaps as part of this self examination, one can see how hard it is to get out of one's comfort zone. The effort of engaging with and learning something different is more than most people can find the time and energy for - even when the differences are relatively modest, as in the case of Newspeak. Some of the reasons some of you cannot get around to really getting involved with Newspeak are quite analogous to the reasons why your Pythonista or Java (or whatever) colleagues cannot get serious about Smalltalk. I am well aware that this is not a terribly actionable observation. It's just the way it is. What one can do is identify weaknesses and work hard at fixing them, and hope that some people will find it worthwhile to become truly involved. Cheers, Gilad _______________________________________________ Esug-list mailing list Esug-list(a)lists.esug.org http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

Oct. 31, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Growing a community

by laurent laffont

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Geert Claes <geert.wl.claes(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > Dan Ingalls wrote: > > > > ... As technologists, we repeatedly underestimate the importance of > > marketing and, even when we know we need to promote our systems, we fail > > because the skills of marketing are not simply technical skills. > > > > Marketing should not be something which is done by non-technologists only, > it is about keeping the user as the central focus of "all" activities. As > you said, its about who the users are, and also about what their > expectations are and how to best address these. > > Hi, I strongly agree on this. IMHO community projects need good leaders to be successful, people who cares about attracting people, create fun and visibility, discuss and set orientations, establish effective processes to lower waste of time and allow newbies to easily submit a one line code patch and give immediate feedback to them. So it means that a leader's work is actually more reading and answering emails, write documentation, retrospectives and visions than writing code. Today social network usage is strong, people search for friends and eventually build things together for fun and status, write blogs, create beautiful web sites, ... Agile movement shows how vital communication and fun are. Maybe people/community is the most important thing on these projects. Good design / technical aspect seems only the second most important thing :) Cheers, Laurent Laffont Pharo Smalltalk Screencasts: http://www.pharocasts.com/ Blog: http://magaloma.blogspot.com/

Oct. 31, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Growing a community

by Geert Claes

Dan Ingalls wrote: > > ... As technologists, we repeatedly underestimate the importance of > marketing and, even when we know we need to promote our systems, we fail > because the skills of marketing are not simply technical skills. > Marketing should not be something which is done by non-technologists only, it is about keeping the user as the central focus of "all" activities. As you said, its about who the users are, and also about what their expectations are and how to best address these. Dan Ingalls wrote: > > ... Now it is mostly running in "the" browser, and communicating over the > web.... > Agree! Dan Ingalls wrote: > > ...Smalltalk has always suffered from two main barriers: installation and > integration. Once you have it installed, and if you don't need to access > anything outside, it is unmatched in its ability to make > simple things simply, and to achieve complex goals as well... > I think Gilad was onto something with his "Objects as Software Services" talk at OOPSLA 2005 about not just the installation, but also the continuos upgrade process. For systems running in the cloud it may be a different story again? Dan Ingalls wrote: > > In the world of today, people expect any new thing of interest to spring > to life in their browser. > They expect it to look attractive, cool, powerful; anything but geeky... > Agree again. Dan Ingalls wrote: > > We expect it to be immediately useful. For a computer language, this > means you can immediately try out some expressions and make something > happen. We want this. We are busy, and we don't have time to > download a new environment, figure out a new browser, learn a new graphics > system, right? > We expect it to be incremental - do some work, save it, pick it up later - > we expect the comforts of Smalltalk-style development.... > The "download a new environment" may not mean to a local machine, because I would like to add that we also expect to pick it up anywhere and probably also on any device! -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Few-thoughts-about-Google-Summer-of-Code-tp3018404p30… Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 31, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Growing a community

by Dan Ingalls

Hi Andres - >Dan, how would you reconcile the need for immediate usefulness and the assumption that "we are busy, and we don't have time to download a new environment, figure out a new browser, learn a new graphics system", with Alan's assertion that technology these days is flawed because it requires little effort? To me it's a question of curriculum. You start with a few interesting things on the table and go from there. I don't think Alan has any problem with this. You need to engage your audience one way or another. Hopefully the initial set is somehow provocative. >================ >A twentieth century problem is that technology has become too "easy". When it was hard to do anything whether good or bad, enough time was taken so that the result was usually good. Now we can make things almost trivially, especially in software, but most of the designs are trivial as well. This is inverse vandalism: the making of things because you can. Couple this to even less sophisticated buyers and you have generated an exploitation marketplace similar to that set up for teenagers. A counter to this is to generate enormous dissatisfaction with one's designs using the entire history of human art as a standard and goal. Then the trick is to decouple the dissatisfaction from self worth--otherwise it is either too depressing or one stops too soon with trivial results. >================ > >In this context, what does it mean to be useful if it requires no effort? I'm not saying no effort to build significant stuff. But no effort to engage -- that's good curriculum / good marketing. > Is this an issue of being able to quickly differentiate ourselves from others because, absent a flashy presentation, we feel we (and our work) are indistinguishable from others (and their work)? Not that we have control over that issue, but I think it would be important to acknowledge that motivation explicitly if it is really there. No, it's more about not differentiating ourselves negatively -- not adding barriers. Show what you are at first click, and what you can do at second click. I'm not saying I've succeeded here, but I know it matters. - D

Oct. 31, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Growing a community

by Andres Valloud

Dan, how would you reconcile the need for immediate usefulness and the assumption that "we are busy, and we don't have time to download a new environment, figure out a new browser, learn a new graphics system", with Alan's assertion that technology these days is flawed because it requires little effort? ================ A twentieth century problem is that technology has become too "easy". When it was hard to do anything whether good or bad, enough time was taken so that the result was usually good. Now we can make things almost trivially, especially in software, but most of the designs are trivial as well. This is inverse vandalism: the making of things because you can. Couple this to even less sophisticated buyers and you have generated an exploitation marketplace similar to that set up for teenagers. A counter to this is to generate enormous dissatisfaction with one's designs using the entire history of human art as a standard and goal. Then the trick is to decouple the dissatisfaction from self worth--otherwise it is either too depressing or one stops too soon with trivial results. ================ In this context, what does it mean to be useful if it requires no effort? Is this an issue of being able to quickly differentiate ourselves from others because, absent a flashy presentation, we feel we (and our work) are indistinguishable from others (and their work)? Not that we have control over that issue, but I think it would be important to acknowledge that motivation explicitly if it is really there. On 10/30/2010 1:48 PM, Dan Ingalls wrote: > Good People - > > Adoption of a language, like any other adoption, is generally a function > of the needs and wants of the audience, and the strengths and weaknesses > of the substance being promoted. For better or worse, this function can > be significantly biased at the outset by marketing. As technologists, we > repeatedly underestimate the importance of marketing and, even when we > know we need to promote our systems, we fail because the skills of > marketing are not simply technical skills. > > Who are our users? > We all have our own answer for this. I'll answer for myself so that I > can be articulate -- these are the users I would like to attract, or who > I feel would find our system valuable if they used it... > Kids at play - ie people 8-16 who are doing fun things > Kids at work - ie students 8-20 who are doing more serious things like > math (including computer science), physics, graphics, music, etc > Computer professionals at play - most of us > Computer professionals at work - most of us > > About the computing context > The computing context has changed a lot over the years. It used to be > personal computers running Mac, Windows or Unix, and it used to be > simple functions like text editing and experiments with media. Now it is > mostly running in "the" browser, and communicating over the web. A > couple of things have remained key values, though: The ability to create > new content simply and directly, and the ability to pull together > existing content flexibly. By "content" I mean both media and functions > (services). The ability to assemble existing content has been the > greatest strength and weakness of Smalltalk over the years. For internal > content, Smalltalk is unmatched in its ability to make every extension, > whether music, graphics, or a financial model, as natural as a built-in > language feature. For external content, however, Smalltalk has > historically faltered at the edges of its monolithic system. > > What do the users need and want? > The ability to create new content simply and directly, > the ability to assemble existing content flexibly, and > the ability to share any results easily. > > What is important for marketing > An old quote of Alan's is still relevant here: "Simple things should be > simple, and complex things should be possible." Smalltalk has always > suffered from two main barriers: installation and integration. Once you > have it installed, and if you don't need to access anything outside, it > is unmatched in its ability to make simple things simply, and to achieve > complex goals as well. Within its self-contained context, its image > model is perfect for saving, restoring, and sharing work between > sessions, between machines, and between users. > > In the world of today, people expect any new thing of interest to spring > to life in their browser. > They expect it to look attractive, cool, powerful; anything but geeky... > http://emberapp.com/ > http://www.thecssawards.com/ > http://cssmania.com/galleries/ > You want this, too, right? So we can use "we" in place of "they". > We expect it to be immediately useful. For a computer language, this > means you can immediately try out some expressions and make something > happen. We want this. We are busy, and we don't have time to download a > new environment, figure out a new browser, learn a new graphics system, > right? > We expect it to be incremental - do some work, save it, pick it up later > - we expect the comforts of Smalltalk-style development. > We expect it to be sharable - do something and send it to someone. It's > what we do with email, photos and videos. We probably want it to be > self-sharing, how about your workspace in your facebook page, and tweets > about each cool new thing. > > These are the things that Gilad and I are grappling with, and I think > everyone on this list probably thinks the same way from time to time. > Gilad is trying to fix some of the modularity problems in Smalltalk and > exploit some of its greatest strengths, while figuring out how to host > it in today's (or tomorrow's) browsers. And I've been playing around > with what's possible using JavaScript directly, but with some Smalltalk > comforts like a nice browser, work in a live editable environment, and > save your project state as a web page. > > To return to Gilad's post, > [my interpretation: We don't take the time and effort to explore new > systems, and we don't take the time and effort to make our own systems > easy for others to explore] >> I am well aware that this is not a terribly actionable observation. >> It's just the way it is. What one can do is identify weaknesses and >> work hard at fixing them, and hope that some people will find it >> worthwhile to become truly involved. > > I feel the same way. But if you feel the same way from time to time, > perhaps you should start a movement to do something similar, or see how > you could contribute to NewSpeak or the Lively Kernel; not to abandon > Smalltalk but to experiment with how to carry *its goals* and *your > desires* forward. > > Nothing is holding us back > > - D > > > > _______________________________________________ > Esug-list mailing list > Esug-list(a)lists.esug.org > http://lists.esug.org/mailman/listinfo/esug-list_lists.esug.org

Oct. 30, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Growing a community

by Dan Ingalls

Good People - Adoption of a language, like any other adoption, is generally a function of the needs and wants of the audience, and the strengths and weaknesses of the substance being promoted. For better or worse, this function can be significantly biased at the outset by marketing. As technologists, we repeatedly underestimate the importance of marketing and, even when we know we need to promote our systems, we fail because the skills of marketing are not simply technical skills. Who are our users? We all have our own answer for this. I'll answer for myself so that I can be articulate -- these are the users I would like to attract, or who I feel would find our system valuable if they used it... Kids at play - ie people 8-16 who are doing fun things Kids at work - ie students 8-20 who are doing more serious things like math (including computer science), physics, graphics, music, etc Computer professionals at play - most of us Computer professionals at work - most of us About the computing context The computing context has changed a lot over the years. It used to be personal computers running Mac, Windows or Unix, and it used to be simple functions like text editing and experiments with media. Now it is mostly running in "the" browser, and communicating over the web. A couple of things have remained key values, though: The ability to create new content simply and directly, and the ability to pull together existing content flexibly. By "content" I mean both media and functions (services). The ability to assemble existing content has been the greatest strength and weakness of Smalltalk over the years. For internal content, Smalltalk is unmatched in its ability to make every extension, whether music, graphics, or a financial model, as natural as a built-in language feature. For external content, however, Smalltalk has historically faltered at the edges of its monolithic system. What do the users need and want? The ability to create new content simply and directly, the ability to assemble existing content flexibly, and the ability to share any results easily. What is important for marketing An old quote of Alan's is still relevant here: "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." Smalltalk has always suffered from two main barriers: installation and integration. Once you have it installed, and if you don't need to access anything outside, it is unmatched in its ability to make simple things simply, and to achieve complex goals as well. Within its self-contained context, its image model is perfect for saving, restoring, and sharing work between sessions, between machines, and between users. In the world of today, people expect any new thing of interest to spring to life in their browser. They expect it to look attractive, cool, powerful; anything but geeky... <http://emberapp.com/>http://emberapp.com/ <http://www.thecssawards.com/> http://www.thecssawards.com/ <http://cssmania.com/galleries/>http://cssmania.com/galleries/ You want this, too, right? So we can use "we" in place of "they". We expect it to be immediately useful. For a computer language, this means you can immediately try out some expressions and make something happen. We want this. We are busy, and we don't have time to download a new environment, figure out a new browser, learn a new graphics system, right? We expect it to be incremental - do some work, save it, pick it up later - we expect the comforts of Smalltalk-style development. We expect it to be sharable - do something and send it to someone. It's what we do with email, photos and videos. We probably want it to be self-sharing, how about your workspace in your facebook page, and tweets about each cool new thing. These are the things that Gilad and I are grappling with, and I think everyone on this list probably thinks the same way from time to time. Gilad is trying to fix some of the modularity problems in Smalltalk and exploit some of its greatest strengths, while figuring out how to host it in today's (or tomorrow's) browsers. And I've been playing around with what's possible using JavaScript directly, but with some Smalltalk comforts like a nice browser, work in a live editable environment, and save your project state as a web page. To return to Gilad's post, [my interpretation: We don't take the time and effort to explore new systems, and we don't take the time and effort to make our own systems easy for others to explore] >I am well aware that this is not a terribly actionable observation. >It's just the way it is. What one can do is identify weaknesses and >work hard at fixing them, and hope that some people will find it >worthwhile to become truly involved. I feel the same way. But if you feel the same way from time to time, perhaps you should start a movement to do something similar, or see how you could contribute to NewSpeak or the Lively Kernel; not to abandon Smalltalk but to experiment with how to carry *its goals* and *your desires* forward. Nothing is holding us back - D

Oct. 30, 2010

Growing a community

by Dan Ingalls

Hi Gilad and all - This is a worthwhile topic, one to which I intend to respond, but it will take some time. Let's start by renaming the thread... > If I may, I'll make one more observation. This thread (and similar ones, oft repeated among Smalltalkers) bemoans the fact that others do not see the beauty of Smalltalk. What I liked about this thread was that Smalltalkers were engaged in serious self examination. There seemed to be a realization that some things need real changes. > >Perhaps as part of this self examination, one can see how hard it is to get out of one's comfort zone. The effort of engaging with and learning something different is more than most people can find the time and energy for - even when the differences are relatively modest, as in the case of Newspeak. >Some of the reasons some of you cannot get around to really getting involved with Newspeak are quite analogous to the reasons why your Pythonista or Java (or whatever) colleagues cannot get serious about Smalltalk. > >I am well aware that this is not a terribly actionable observation. It's just the way it is. What one can do is identify weaknesses and work hard at fixing them, and hope that some people will find it worthwhile to become truly involved.

Oct. 30, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Few thoughts about Google Summer of Code

by Gilad Bracha

Hi Geert, Rob and others, On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Geert Claes wrote: > > We do have Newspeak listed on http://www.world.st/implementations so everyone > should make some time :) Thanks for that and for the good intentions! If I may, I'll make one more observation. This thread (and similar ones, oft repeated among Smalltalkers) bemoans the fact that others do not see the beauty of Smalltalk. What I liked about this thread was that Smalltalkers were engaged in serious self examination. There seemed to be a realization that some things need real changes. Perhaps as part of this self examination, one can see how hard it is to get out of one's comfort zone. The effort of engaging with and learning something different is more than most people can find the time and energy for - even when the differences are relatively modest, as in the case of Newspeak. Some of the reasons some of you cannot get around to really getting involved with Newspeak are quite analogous to the reasons why your Pythonista or Java (or whatever) colleagues cannot get serious about Smalltalk. I am well aware that this is not a terribly actionable observation. It's just the way it is. What one can do is identify weaknesses and work hard at fixing them, and hope that some people will find it worthwhile to become truly involved. Cheers, Gilad

Oct. 30, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Few thoughts about Google Summer of Code

by Geert Claes

We do have Newspeak listed on http://www.world.st/implementations so everyone should make some time :) -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Few-thoughts-about-Google-Summer-of-Code-tp3018404p30… Sent from the ESUG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 30, 2010

Re: [Esug-list] Few thoughts about Google Summer of Code

by Rob Vens

Gilad, I do not think you are "doing wrong" as you formulated it. In a way we Smalltalkers are maybe a bit conservative, but speaking for myself I have always found Newspeak extremely enticing. It was, as I am sure is the case for many more Smalltalkers (and my guess is many more than you suspect based on your post), always on my "should-look-into-it" list, but I just did not find (and make ;-)) the time to actually put some effort into it. I think it is worthwhile to try to make others than yourself make more noise about it, not only within the Smalltalk community. It may be a subject for another thread but I would like to put out a call among the members of this mailing list, not per-se to actually and structurally participate in the Newspeak effort, but at least to let others and Gilad know that Newspeak is on your radar and that Gilad will not need to say that "very few Smalltalkers are interested in Newspeak". I know I am! 2010/10/30 Gilad Bracha <gilad(a)bracha.org> > Andres, > > On Oct 30, 2010, at 12:35 AM, Andres Valloud wrote: > > > I would like to try a browser that keeps track of the code navigation I > have had to make so far to get where I am, something that relieves me from > having to remember the graph traversal of the code. Does this exist? > > In Newspeak, the Hopscotch browser maintains a history of everywhere you've > been, which is always one click away - which means any class, object, > workspace etc. is at most two clicks away at all times. I'm not sure if this > is what you meant > > While I'm on the topic of Newspeak, here are some observations that are > perhaps relevant to this thread. Be aware that I am engaged in shameless > self promotion. > > a. Newspeak has a syntax. So: > > b You can edit Newspeak in whatever editor you want. The IDE runs in an > image in the classic Smalltalk way, but also saves each class you modify in > a file automatically. > c. The IDE has integrated support for source control. Currently this uses a > svn-Monticello integration, but the next phase will phase out Monticello and > work directly with mercurial, git or svn. > > Furthermore > > e. Newspeak introduced the Alien FFI, which allows us to use the rest of > the world's software. Case in point: we recently needed to talk to some > software over https. Squeak does not support this natively, and requires a > plugin, which is by its own documentation unstable. We just call out to > libCurl. > > f. Using said aliens, we support a portable native GUI. Looks great on a > modern Windows machine. We could support mac as well, if we had more > resources. But, as Andres implies, this is fighting the last war. Hence: > > g. We are getting close to running the exact same GUI in a browser. > > > h. As far as deployment goes, we can deploy apps independent of the IDE - > either via the browser or as executables (on Windows) or, in principle, > anything else. That is because the language actually supports modularity. > > Some of these features need more work to reach full maturity. This could > happen sooner if we got more volunteers. While the Smalltalk community might > be a good source of such volunteers, I recognize it isn't happening. > > So, what am I doing wrong? Newspeak is open source, it runs Squeak > Smalltalk as well as Newspeak, and provides a very Smalltalk-like experience > for those who want it, while addressing many of the issues that have been > brought up in this thread. Even so, very few Smalltalkers are interested in > working with Newspeak. > >

Oct. 30, 2010