Getting Naked

Post #36,500 by tuberculosis 4/25/02 12:19:41 PM Reply	Getting Naked [link\|http://www.nakedobjects.org\|http://www.nakedobjects.org] There was an article on this little kit on JavaPro. The authors pay appropriate homage to Squeak's Morphic library. This highlights an interesting trend I'm seeing. More and more people are developing new languages that run on top of Java but that implement a more dynamic object model along the Smalltalk lines (class objects that contain method dictionaries, isA pointers, new syntaxes, etc...). A neat example is bistro at [link\|http://bistro.sourceforge.net\|http://bistro.sourceforge.net] Although efforts to work in bistro show me its not ready for prime time (compiler errors are particularly cryptic) and its only dynamic like C++ is dynamic - methods are compiled into vtable like arrays, its still pretty cool. The upshot of this implies to me that people are hitting the wall on Java the language - its too restrictive - and striving for the benefits of more dynamic runtimes by using the java runtime and writing new languages on top it. Adios Java the language. Cool. The average hunter gatherer works 20 hours a week. The average farmer works 40 hours a week. The average programmer works 60 hours a week. What the hell are we thinking?
Post #36,503 by tonytib 4/25/02 12:46:46 PM Reply	Dynamic languages do have their advantages I used a little of Python's dynamic abilities as part of the solution to my latest COM problem (implementing a Python COM server singleton with properties) where methods and properties are automatically exposed to COM based on my naming convention. It's fun to be able to find out the names of all the functions and variables, call functions with a list containing the parameters, and such. I couldn't have done what I needed in C++; I think I'd still be reading COM C++ documentation (based on my very limited experience with COM in C++). Summary: COM is still crappy, but it's better in Python. Tony
Post #36,513 by tseliot 4/25/02 1:14:38 PM Reply	Yabut did you read the philosophy part? :D Quoting from their FAQ: "The naked objects philosophy, at least in regard to its impact on the product, undoubtedly embodies an optimistic view of people. It will not succeed everywhere. But we find the alternative philosophy just too awful to contemplate." Be wary of idealistic programming. :P This was an intersting read for me, 'cause I'm about halfway through writing a list-generation/reporting engine for our own company. So, yes, I know first-hand it's nice to have business objects mirror user "objects" as closely as possible. But I also know first-hand that data entry is NOT the same thing as reporting. You want a financial report? Fine--here's a flat table of numbers--crunch with Excel as much as you like. But getting those numbers entered by a human is another story, and it's where careful UI design by a human is necessary. --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767

Welcome to IWETHEY!