Re: Its a bird, its a plane, its.. um, an Attribute based System?

On Apr 2, 2:21=A0pm, Le Couey <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> On 4/2/2010 10:39 AM, David Masover wrote:
>
> > Not to feed the troll, and I realize I'm late to this thread, but...
>
> > That said, I'm not sure that was the main issue. The main issue is that=
 you
> > not only concocted your own whole new vocabulary, but you were unable t=
o
> > define pretty much any term you were using in plain English, or in plai=
n Ruby,
> > or in any terms we would understand.
>
> >> 3. Using phrases that mean other things to people that are in
> >> authority is not a good way to start any conversation,
>
> > I don't know that there's any particular authority in control of this f=
orum.
> > What authority there is seems to be meritocratic -- that is, I listen t=
o
> > certain people because I know what they've done, and I know they can be
> > respected. When the guy who wrote Merb (and Nanite, and a bunch of othe=
r fun
> > things) tells you he doesn't know what you're talking about, I'm inclin=
ed to
> > believe it's that you have a problem communicating, and not that we hav=
e a
> > problem understanding.
> > ...
> >> 7. =A0Open source has an attitude of "show me your source" and any
> >> situation that does not fit this mold can become one of suspicion.
>
> > Somewhat, but not necessarily.
>
> > For example, I've occasionally brought up my somewhat abstract idea of =
a pure-
> > Ruby actor library in which the messages sent between actors are just m=
ethod
> > calls, and actors can be garbage-collected. I sort of have a prototype,=
 but
> > I've never shared it here.
>
> > Yet people were willing to talk to me about it, because I'm able to exp=
lain it
> > in terms they can understand. The only thing missing might be a descrip=
tion of
> > the actor model, and I can just point them here:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model
>
> > The reason people are insisting that you show us the code is that you s=
eem
> > utterly incapable of saying what you mean in plain English, so there's =
the
> > hope that maybe, if there's something to it, we'll be able to understan=
d your
> > code. I have my doubts about that -- it might be that people were hopin=
g you'd
> > shut up and go make it work.
>
> >> 8 forum "politics" is not new to me, but the system of "Rank" here
> >> seems less fragmented than I had expected. Human swarms are always
> >> interesting. =A0Mr Davis used exactly the timing, and exactly decisive
> >> manner that I would use to shut down a "young turk" if I was in a
> >> position of authority. =A0(Breaking of rank at this point would take
> >> some balls.)
>
> > I'm fairly sure I've disagreed with Mr. Davis on occasion. I've certain=
ly
> > "broken rank" with anyone here who could be considered a "leader". Ther=
e are
> > all sorts of lively debates, and politics generally doesn't get in the =
way.
>
> > The problem here is not politics, it is the fact that no one, even quie=
t
> > lurkers like me, is able to figure out what you're talking about. If so=
meone
> > could, I'd hope they would speak up and translate for the rest of us.
>
> I'm a lurker here myself. My time is very restricted right now, but I
> like to see what people are doing and what problems they're running into
> AND what the solutions others have come up with, ;-)
>
> You've made some very good points here. But I think you may have missed
> the primary consideration Thunk has that keeps him from communication
> what his real problem is ... so, with out a well defined problem, no one
> can see a solution for him. So not responses that he "can use", only
> requests for clarification, which he "can't" give. The point you've misse=
d:> Meanwhile I will continue to build that public wiki at:
>
> >http://wiki.github.com/gkoller/Ruids/
>
> > at my own pace consistent with a "proprietary" release in 3 months or
> > so.
> > ...
> > Thunk
>
> The key phrase is "proprietary". He's afraid of loosing MONEY if he
> actually tells what he wants, so he "hints" and "Hints" but does not
> tell anything that can be of use.
>
> I've seen this many times before, Thunk wants a solution HE CAN SELL as
> HIS WORK, not OPEN SOURCE, or even the "Ruby way", he wants ALL the
> credit, but little of the work. He wants a solution that is a "plug and
> play" solution. But, again, he's afraid to let anyone know what he
> really is after ... they might beat him to the market and get all the
> money first! Or at least that's the impression I'm getting from his
> writings so far. It's difficult for him, he doesn't trust anyone one the
> list. He has no one he can turn to for help at the same time. If he's
> good he'll figure it out by himself. If he's just average ... well he'll
> probably blame the list "politics".
>
> --
> LeCouey
> =A0 =A0 Professional Hacker (1967) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 Rubyist (from the
> time when the ONLY docs were in Japanese, and I DON'T read/write/speak
> Japanese! <sigh>)
> =A0 =A0 Professional Newbie (1950) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0There is always
> more to learn about Every Subject! AND There is always a better way,
> that requires less effort, of doing it.
> =A0 =A0 Professional Generalist (1979) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0If I can't program
> it, IT can not be done! By Anyone! (with maybe a few exceptions B-\ =A0;-=
)
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________
> Security is mostly a superstition, it does not exist in nature, nor do
> the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no
> safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring
> adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like
> free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable. - Helen
> Keller.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * Taglines by TagZilla *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

Absolutely Fascinating!

Thank you!

Please understand, however, that one instance of the general PROBLEM
that I can see clearly as an opportunity is (relatively?) clear and I
think that was communicated reasonably clearly, eagerly, and early on.

What has made things much less clear, is that as I "backed into this
problem" certain strengths of Ruby drew me into trying new things, and
what can I say, they are showing themselves to function.  This is
exciting to me, and as an experienced and relatively confident
programmer, I don't need to FINISH a project entirely to convince
MYSELF that what I SEE can be be accomplished.

When one uses new tools, in a new domain,  there is NEVER going to be
100% confidence until the deed is done, the product is shrink-wrapped,
out the door...(and then one wonders about returns and support).
Whoops, that was the 80's but there is certainly some equivalent of
this in your respective worlds.

I "backed into the problem" by probing and testing some "what if this
should work" basis.  It generally worked, then it became clear, that
for example the DSL work would be almost trivial because of the
intrinsic power built into Ruby.

The problem I "backed into", is not difficult, or terribly complex,
but the SOLUTION has broader implications - or I honestly believe that
they do.

And I would be most glad to share THAT, but it would take time and
resources that I simply do not have.  I cannot spend my time on
documenting a framework to give away, without taking time away from my
laughably narrow (venal bourgeoisie) but critical to me project.  My
heart is with the Open Source, I love Ruby, and I owe the community
something..... and so on... the proper sentiments expressed so often
with varying degrees of sincerity)

Attached to the above is a 90% certainty (in my mind) that I can do
something in the concrete instance path I am on (or I would be batshit
crazy) compared to a "context / coincidence / mood / credentials /
ego / ability to communicate / connections " mixed up world of Open
Source.  Sorry, if I offend here but there is about the same credit
given for having founded and run a corporation in the 80's 90's and
producing new products as there is to knowing the right buzzword at
the right moment - (although I admit I am probably rather an
statistical outlier in this regard).

There is also a consideration that rather drives me to distraction.  I
would be most glad to share 100% of everything with somebody I know to
trust, the offer has been made, what I cannot relate to is having it
"out there" 24/7 for anybody to do anything with - including coming
straight at me in my little but necessary domain of interest.  Being
abstract and theoretical about this might seem to make that go away,
but it is a simple fact that once something is on the web you have
basically given it away to anybody to do anything with...

The ideal solution, as I can see it, would be to share this 100%,
heads on, straight up, with one trusted entity that can evaluate the
potential and simply go from there.  The offer is made, consider it
official.  Perhaps that could be a university, or such, or a company
with a track record of doing this stuff right.

The idea that this might occur, has been in the back of my mind since
coming to this board.

My track record is real, it involves real professors with a pedigree
traceable to Dr, W. A. Shewhart, and Dr. W. Edward Deming and
the"Statistical Control of quality" movement into software that I was
proud to play a role in.

There was a few more interesting years of an art studio, sailing, and
other silly things before discovering Ruby and getting serious
again... but that is another story.


Respectfully, and humbly

thunk


ps - "and Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." makes me
think of one of my last "commutes" to my studio that included waves of
20' (no kidding) in my 27' sailboat.  I loved every second of it, its
how we grow. Calm waters are for another brand of soul.