On Feb 1, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wackn...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> There are some kinds of students who are going to find Smalltalk difficult, >> yes. I do not see how removing pooldictionaries from the class creation >> template will affect them. If they ask about them, you can say that they are >> there and point them to the new class creation message. And take advantage >> of that to say that class creation is just a message send while you are at >> it :-) > > 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. >> 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 isn’t 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 didn’t 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, you’re 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 it’s an absolute minority of Pharo users who aren’t 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 didn’t 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. > 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. >> 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 <sebast...@flowingconcept.com> > wrote: > >> Lets says it convinces you… >> >> 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
