El mié, 19-08-2009 a las 00:04 -0300, [email protected] escribió: > Em 18/08/2009 22:25, Igor Stasenko < [email protected] > escreveu: > > >> Em 18/08/2009 20:23, Ken.Dickey < [email protected] > > escreveu: > >> > [snipped] > > >>>> I don't want to be peevish here, but things like: > >>>> >>Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk > syntax. > >>>> >>E.g. > >>>> >> (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i) > >>>> > >>>> indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. > >>> > >> > >> Well, this comment was not really a inspired one, when I saw it I > also had > >> hitches to post a question to Igor to understand what was the > complaint... > >> > > > >Because, to my sense, smalltalk having a few, brilliant concepts, and > >one of them is uniform syntax rules. > > I agree 99.9%. > > >If you start adding new rules - it is very likely that you'll make > >things overly complex & redundant. > > Is a risk all languages that evolve and attempt to be all encompassing > run into, and again I'm with you on attemting to avoid this deadly > downward spiral. > > >There are many studies showing that smalltalkers are times more > >productive than developers who using > >"industry" programming languages. Do you think they are all genious? > > I don't want to rain in your party, but I work with benchmarking of > application development for more than ten years and I have to inform > you that this statement does not stand. > > Perhaps when Smalltalk was near its inception and other platforms were > in their infancy this kind of rept could be called by smalltalkers > when buiding complex GUI apps, but right now there is no headway for > Smalltalk... >
Maybe you can tell us how much time would you estimate for a java (or better yet, c++) version of Seaside or maybe of GLORP, that were made for a significant part of their initial life for a single person. I *am* times more productive in Smalltalk than in Java or PHP or C, even if I can not show an *enterprise* benchmark the kind of ones that Garner and friends so happily like to show in magazines and flyers. So, a lot of people here can attest that indeed it is more productive to work in Smalltalk taht in other languages, and that is the reason why this *myth* persist. Maybe subjective, maybe not. We know that when we work in Smalltalk and think how much more time/work/effort/boredom will take to do the same on other languages. > Today, due the minute participation of Smalltalk in world production > of new funcionality, you cannot find in any commercial or publicly > available database on productivity (like ISBSG http://www.isbsg.org/) > it mentioned by itself, but only lumped as OTHER 4GL). > > For a more or less uptodate and public reference, give a look at > http://www.qsm.com/?q=resources/function-point-languages-table/index.html > > WTF. From the page: What is a gearing factor? The gearing factor is simply the average number of Source Lines of Code (SLOC) per function point in the completed project. It is calculated by dividing the final code count for a completed project by the final function point count. SLOC counts are logical, not physical line counts. Nuts, is this how the *enterprise* projects are evaluated? That is absolute non-sense. What is the difference between logical and physical line counts? > >Or maybe there is something which > >increasing their productivity? > > As you make the rept "are they all genious", I counter with: would you > accept/believe that all managers who're responsible for development > worldwide are "pointed haired bosses" which cannot discover if such a > thing as 'silver bullet' existed? > > Most productivity is obtained due discipline, processes, trained and > motivated people, and one of the last factors is programming language > syntax. Programming language technology obviously has a role, > otherwise it would be indifferent programming in (say) Smalltalk, > versus (say) assembly. More non-sense, the process isn't a factor. The very same person can do sometimes the same work in a week or in a night with coffee. WE ARE NOT machines producing nails in a predictable, constant over time, unaffected by personal affairs. This factory model doesn't work and has never worked. And the ever increasing complexity and irreal methods created to try to measure people are a sad result of this way of thinking. I believe that the work we do is more akin to the artistic disciplines. Will you try to measure the work done by a musician? or a painter? That is why the pointed haired bosses depiction and Dilbert cartoons are so popular. > > HTH > > -- > > Cesar Rabak > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
