A final comment on 'paradigms' - by the time they seep into the mainstream they are often dumbed-down and then over-hyped.  That happened with objects and is now happening with aspects.  Read this from Peter Van Roy:

http://www.mozart-oz.org/lists/oz-hackers/0201.html

"Dammit, those AOP [Aspect-Oriented Programming] guys are masters of media hype. With epsilon work they get their own special issue of CACM. We have actually SOLVED some of the problems that they are still cracking their heads over. The hordes of AOP groupies have a right to know this."

So my point is this:  Working programmers are much better off doing their own background study than trusting mainstream wisdom du jour.

-Mark

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> escreveu na mensagem news:bilo15$24va$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A final comment on 'paradigms' - by the time they seep into the mainstream
they
> are often dumbed-down and then over-hyped.  That happened with objects and
is
> now happening with aspects.  Read this from Peter Van Roy:
>
> http://www.mozart-oz.org/lists/oz-hackers/0201.html
>
> "Dammit, those AOP [Aspect-Oriented Programming] guys are masters of media
hype.
> With epsilon work they get their own special issue of CACM. We have
actually
> SOLVED some of the problems that they are still cracking their heads over.
The
> hordes of AOP groupies have a right to know this."
>
> So my point is this:  Working programmers are much better off doing their
own
> background study than trusting mainstream wisdom du jour.
>
> -Mark
<rant>
There's a recent thread on LtU where I talk about this subject:
http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$8192?mode=topic

IMO it's the language's community fault. If the Mozart/Oz community solve
these Aspect problems (I'm not saying they didn't, just trying to make a
point) they should publish articles like: "Aspects make your head hurt? Take
a pill of good Oz medicine!" talking about how to use Mozart/Oz instead of
AspectJ and such. What they do instead? Write a enormous compendium of
everything you wanted to know about Oz but was too afraid to ask, several
academic papers and some library tutorials. They should (someone in the Oz
community) write a book like: "How to learn Oz in 24 hours" or "Mozart/Oz
for dummies" and some like "Webservices in Mozart/Oz", "Mastering XML in
Mozart/Oz". These kind of books are easy to write, can be written by several
people, one per chapter (Wrox published lots of these kind of books) and
they'll make Mozart/Oz accessible and atractive to "the masses". Until
there's a "MozartWorld" site publishing practical articles with
code-examples, it's their fault that the other guys get "their own special
issue of CACM". They aren't "masters of media hype" they just know how to
"dumb-down" their work and talk in the language common programmers talk.
</rant>
"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:bilo15$24va$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A final comment on 'paradigms' - by the time they seep into the mainstream
they
> are often dumbed-down and then over-hyped.  That happened with objects and
is
> now happening with aspects.  Read this from Peter Van Roy:
>
> http://www.mozart-oz.org/lists/oz-hackers/0201.html
>
> "Dammit, those AOP [Aspect-Oriented Programming] guys are masters of media
hype.
> With epsilon work they get their own special issue of CACM. We have
actually
> SOLVED some of the problems that they are still cracking their heads over.
The
> hordes of AOP groupies have a right to know this."
>
> So my point is this:  Working programmers are much better off doing their
own
> background study than trusting mainstream wisdom du jour.
>
> -Mark
<rant>
There's a recent thread on LtU where I talk about this subject:
http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$8192?mode=topic

IMO it's the language's community fault. If the Mozart/Oz community solve these Aspect problems (I'm not saying they didn't, just trying to make a point) they should publish articles like: "Aspects make your head hurt? Take a pill of good Oz medicine!" talking about how to use Mozart/Oz instead of AspectJ and such. What they do instead? Write a enormous compendium of everything you wanted to know about Oz but was too afraid to ask, several academic papers and some library tutorials. They should (someone in the Oz community) write a book like: "How to learn Oz in 24 hours" or "Mozart/Oz for dummies" and some like "Webservices in Mozart/Oz", "Mastering XML in Mozart/Oz". These kind of books are easy to write, can be written by several people, one per chapter (Wrox published lots of these kind of books) and they'll make Mozart/Oz accessible and atractive to "the masses". Until there's a "MozartWorld" site publishing practical articles with code-examples, it's their fault that the other guys get "their own special issue of CACM". They aren't "masters of media hype" they just know how to "dumb-down" their work and talk in the language common programmers talk. </rant>

Daniel,

Give them credit for a decade of research and a thousand-page book donated for free online.  Maybe after that goes to press, they'll have time for this marketing stuff. After a well-deserved vacation, that is.

Heaven help us if our design decisions hinge on who has better marketing...

-Mark

Well, those Mozart/OS guys (never heard of them before) seem to be making a common mistake: they focus on the means (programming language) rather than the goal (problem). While it might be great to have a language that supports everything and everybody, if it does not help people to solve an actual problem it will not be used. Same is true when nobody knows about it, which also seems to be the case here

Both Mozart/OS and AOP people think they've come up with the silver bullet that will put an end to all programming problems. Everybody should know that such a thing simply does not exist. The best you can do is offer a tool that can play a small part in solving a problem you have, but partly and with limitations. The more generic such a tool becomes, the less useful it becomes too.

The good old KISS paradigm still works fine for me :)

PS Walter if you're reading this, it's also true for D

Jeroen-

That's just about completely backward - like a photographic negative.  Where do you get such a picture.  That summary misreads them on every count.  Somehow I feel like I'm in 1984's Ministry of Truth around here...black is white, up is down...

1. Mozart-Oz says that there is NO silver bullet, which is exactly why they advocate multiparadigm languages.  2. Their whole semantic model is based on KISS - "what are the minimum concepts required to support paradigm X."  3. They solve several practical problems (like concurrency) which cause other languages to fall apart miserably.

My own point was that programmers must shoulder the responsibility of finding the right tools for their job.  If we just accept the latest programming fads, then we're not the best we can be.  We are like journalists who type up government press releases instead of doing our own investigative footwork.  No one but the government benefits from that.

Part of the reason I contribute here is to help with the footwork.  Maybe now's the time for a good vacation though.

Mark

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bircmm$1jl8$1@digitaldaemon.com... [cut]
>
> Part of the reason I contribute here is to help with the footwork.  Maybe now's the time for a good vacation though.

I like to read your posts, and Daniel's. Especially when you talk to each other :)

Sorry Mark, I guess I was jumping to conclusions a bit here. I did not know Mozart-Os and I based my posting on the e-mail thread alone.

I just get so tired of people claiming to have solved the problems of the world. AOP is very active in this, and "we have solved concurrency" gave me the impression that Mozart-Os was doing the same. It's just not that simple, and I would like to see a bit more modesty and perspective.

Of course, modesty does not sell.

About KISS - it does seem like a paradox to me: they try to keep things simple so they come up with a language that supports multiple paradigms. Wouldn't 'simple' imply sticking to just one paradigm? I'll have to study their material a bit more.

As for each programmer taking responsibility to find the right tools for the job, I totally agree. It means that people need to see things in perspective, and see through the marketing hypes. My critizising AOP was aimed at that


"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bircmm$1jl8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Jeroen-
>
> That's just about completely backward - like a photographic negative.
Where do
> you get such a picture.  That summary misreads them on every count.
Somehow I
> feel like I'm in 1984's Ministry of Truth around here...black is white, up
is
> down...
>
> 1. Mozart-Oz says that there is NO silver bullet, which is exactly why
they
> advocate multiparadigm languages.  2. Their whole semantic model is based
on
> KISS - "what are the minimum concepts required to support paradigm X."  3.
They
> solve several practical problems (like concurrency) which cause other
languages
> to fall apart miserably.
>
> My own point was that programmers must shoulder the responsibility of
finding
> the right tools for their job.  If we just accept the latest programming
fads,
> then we're not the best we can be.  We are like journalists who type up government press releases instead of doing our own investigative footwork.
No
> one but the government benefits from that.
>
> Part of the reason I contribute here is to help with the footwork.  Maybe
now's
> the time for a good vacation though.
>
> Mark
>
>

In article <bisd54$353$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> Sorry Mark, I guess I was jumping to conclusions a bit here. I did not know Mozart-Os and I based my posting on the e-mail thread alone.
> 
> I just get so tired of people claiming to have solved the problems of the world. AOP is very active in this, and "we have solved concurrency" gave me the impression that Mozart-Os was doing the same. It's just not that simple, and I would like to see a bit more modesty and perspective.
> 
> Of course, modesty does not sell.

Consider the possibility that they actually *have* something revolutionary in their hands and they know it; I would, for one, make one hell of a noise in that situation.

I don't know what I'm talking about, as of yet -- but I'm planning to find out. A good place to start, I suppose, would be their book,

http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/booksingle.pdf

Chapter 4: Declarative Concurrency
Chapter 5: Message-Passing Concurrency
Chapter 8: Shared-State Concurrency

Probably the chapters 1 and 2 are worth reading too, particularly for getting familiar with the syntax (section 2.3).

-Antti

"Jeroen van Bemmel" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:biqoac$n5l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The more generic such a tool becomes, the less useful it
> becomes too.
> The good old KISS paradigm still works fine for me :)
> PS Walter if you're reading this, it's also true for D

I know. I've been accused many times of putting too many features into D, instead of making it more generic.