>> >> 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 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. 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 > >
