3 ms·

Assuming this actually exists and mere mortals can one day get their hands on it, I predict that at best, it will eliminate some of the boilerplate gruntwork co

Assuming this actually exists and mere mortals can one day get their hands on it, I predict that at best, it will eliminate some of the boilerplate gruntwork common in enterprisey programming and at worst, it will just be another over-engineered FactoryFactoryFactoryFramework productivity killer with an aggressive cult following. I understand the concepts involved and they are sound, but as with any pie in the sky invention, the devil is in the details. Until they show us how they handle those details, they don't really have anything to say.

wlievens 18y ago
I'm not sure. If you do this the right way, you could build a Smalltalk the way it should have been. And that's not really an over-engineered enterprisey thing by itself is it?
- plinkplonk 18y ago
  "If you do this the right way you could build a Smalltalk the way it should have been" it all depends on the details of "the way it should have been" and "the right way". which I believe was the grandparents original point - the devil is in the details. So far all we have is lots of hype and a video or two. I personally believe the whole "multitide of dsls" angle, which is where Mr.Fowler is coming from, is a load of fluff wrapped around a genuine engineering principle (linguistic abstraction - see SICP). The fluff is the "enterprisey" part.
- vorador 18y ago
  What do you mean by "the way it should have been" ?
  - wlievens 18y ago
    Smalltalk (at leas the flavor I used) stores code as a data structure rather than plain text. That same idea is at the core of the language workbench concept Fowler is championing. What the language workbench concept adds to that is that you can render and edit your "code" data structure in a multitude of languages. That includes graphical flow languages, for instance. One could take Smalltalk and take it to this step, too. I agree that right now it all looks like slideware, but I do think the concept has merit.

wlievens 18y ago

I'm not sure. If you do this the right way, you could build a Smalltalk the way it should have been. And that's not really an over-engineered enterprisey thing by itself is it?

plinkplonk 18y ago
"If you do this the right way you could build a Smalltalk the way it should have been" it all depends on the details of "the way it should have been" and "the right way". which I believe was the grandparents original point - the devil is in the details. So far all we have is lots of hype and a video or two. I personally believe the whole "multitide of dsls" angle, which is where Mr.Fowler is coming from, is a load of fluff wrapped around a genuine engineering principle (linguistic abstraction - see SICP). The fluff is the "enterprisey" part.
vorador 18y ago
What do you mean by "the way it should have been" ?
- wlievens 18y ago
  Smalltalk (at leas the flavor I used) stores code as a data structure rather than plain text. That same idea is at the core of the language workbench concept Fowler is championing. What the language workbench concept adds to that is that you can render and edit your "code" data structure in a multitude of languages. That includes graphical flow languages, for instance. One could take Smalltalk and take it to this step, too. I agree that right now it all looks like slideware, but I do think the concept has merit.