lack of contributors

[Brian Rice]

On Apr 4, 2006, at 2:36 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:

> Brian Rice wrote:
>> The core coders (Lee) left. THAT's the problem. I'm not blind to  
>> the  fact that the speed of Slate is a serious problem. Todd  
>> Fleming told  me himself that the disappointing speed of the UI  
>> disheartened him to  stop working on it.
>> The irony here is staggering. I just don't know what to do about  
>> it.  Bringing back Lee would have its own attendant problems -  
>> he's really  just not easy to work with.
>
> If nothing else works, would you be able to add support for LLVM?  
> You mentioned it a few times and it seemed to require architectural  
> changes (SSA).

This is addressed in an earlier reply in this thread.

> Lee seemed to be depressed because of lack of progress (not because  
> he does not want to work on big projects). He made the impression  
> that he did not want to work on the compiler any longer  
> ("sigh...yet another 2500 lines of code..."), so I had my doubts  
> about his return. Maybe he coded too much and maybe you two were  
> talking about too many "future" things on IRC instead of just  
> coding the high-priority stuff before doing anything else.

I have no idea. Lee cared only about writing a stand-alone OS with  
its own compiler and tool-chain. Slate was only a better alternative  
to Squeak for writing compilers and system software.

These goals /became/ "future" stuff because I wanted a usable system.  
Priorities were always based on perspective. What you think is high- 
priority didn't concern him much at all, and vice-versa.

> Do you think that Lee would continue his work if you ask him  
> politely? You don't have to "live" with him. Just code your stuff  
> and stay away from IRC discussions (only help in case of real  
> problems).

The code tree is the "house" we all live in. If code changes  
conflict, people get upset, and he would often get upset at the mere  
idea of extending the VM in ways he did not like to support.

IRC has very little to do with it, and he has shown very little  
inclination to communicate via other media.

>> So, if you want this to happen, help me make it happen. Do some  
>> work  to make site improvements or blurbs that will speak to the  
>> right  people. Be a language marketer. Someone has to do it.
>
> I already tried to promote it. Most people shy away from complex  
> syntax. That was the reason for my earlier mail suggesting to at  
> least remove all this "@(... traits)" stuff and reduce the use of  
> ugly chars like "#!@%$&`|".

Somehow I doubt you are introducing this to people who would find  
Slate naturally appealing. You also have an aggressive resistance to  
Smalltalk syntax, which is likely to be a hidden undercurrent in any  
way that you communicate about it.

You have provided no concrete suggestions for replacement that did  
not reduce to "shoehorn it into Python syntax". I have also provided  
a plausible coding framework into which you could channel your  
efforts. I await the use of that.

>> So I want people to work intensely on it so that the project is  
>> not  filled with hundreds of half-done projects and nothing useful. I
>
> Well, what might be the reason for people running away, then? I  
> think that the syntax plays a big role. Smalltalk is very verbose,  
> for example (maybe this is good, though). There are too many rough  
> edges. The ideas are cool, but Slate is not as easy to learn and  
> use as it should be.

The kind of verboseness that Smalltalk has ***IS*** good. Making code  
that reads as much like natural phrasings of a domain and how to  
organize it is infinitely better than fn(arg, arg, ...) notation and  
hard-coded control-flow primitive syntax.

If you don't like that, then work with the MVC syntax pattern  
suggested or LEAVE. Honestly if the next 10 email messages from you  
are still concerned with this, I will just start ignoring you.

>> I'm hard-pressed to find what I should do about it. That's why I   
>> invite people to write tutorials covering it, because the manual  
>> is a  ***reference*** and not didactic at all. It cannot be my job  
>> to teach  people Slate, because I live in it and cannot get my  
>> mind out of that  perspective. I just CAN'T do it. Similarly, if I  
>> wrote tutorials, I  would have a harder time "swapping out" that  
>> information and  "swapping in" Slate internal code information.
>
> I started collecting a pro/con list for every Slate feature and I  
> will add suggestions on how to improve the situation. I'll post it  
> to http://slate.infogami.com/ when it's finished.
> I will also try to make an easy to understand "syntax" introduction  
> without saying things like "unary messages have higher precedence  
> than...". I'll try to make it as natural as possible, but it's  
> really difficult with three types of messages...

You just don't like Smalltalk syntax. Admit it. It's describable on  
one page of paper for Squeakers, and yet you're making this big deal  
about it. It's a syntax that 12-year-olds can learn. Don't be such a  
stubborn person.

What's your alternative? Removing the three precedence levels so that  
parentheses are needed everywhere? Somehow I think you'll resist this  
appearance of lisp-ish syntax even more.

> Could the others please help me with this work? Why do you think is  
> Slate cool? What are its issues? Where is room for improvement?
> Please reply to this mail or go to http://slate.infogami.com/ and  
> add your opinion.

Uh, that is not the purpose of the infogami, and I am not going to do  
that. If anything, the infogami was started at least partly because  
the wiki was unavailable. In fact, I am going to stay away from it  
and let it be user-driven.

--
-Brian
http://tunes.org/~water/brice.vcf

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /archives/slate/attachments/20060404/83ac7dec/PGP.pgp