Seaside social standing outperforms facts

Valuable comments are not well visible on this blog software.
I therefore make a post from a discussion with a Smalltalk expert so that you can make up your mind what facts and arguments weight for some Seaside advocats:

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

I will not accept your unverified statements here. I *will* accept comments made in response to your proper bug reports. If you want to make a difference to the Seaside project, please make proper bug reports, and please offer to provide patches for things that you have solutions for. Otherwise, you're tilting at windmills, with all due respect.

My answer is:

"Unverified"?

Randal, your are a Smalltalk expert, very active on the Seaside mailing list. You do know that all of my claims here are valid and reasonable, even if some may be subject to taste and personal style, of course.

That's why there is again not one word from you about my critics, only about "politics".

Beyond the background and history of this blog (see: "History of my critics"), my recent experience with the Seaside advocats on the mailing list after publishing the blog tells it all:

- A community of "experts" that has violated the law of documenting code for more than 7 years cannot be taken seriously (1)
- Almost no discussion of my critics and proposals.
- Those two or three writers who wanted to discuss my critics were made shut-up immediately by the "community".
- Social pressure replaces arguments.
- Best is this post where it says: To be taken seriously *your social standing* in the Seaside mailing list community is most important, in other words:

Facts don't really count for the Seasiders!

This blog tells the public about details, problems and deficiencies of Seaside and about my experiences - openly and most honestly - so that everybody can make up his own mind.

The Seaside advocats have had their chances - they were all refused. All you can do is take my critics seriously, first of all document Seaside properly in the code and remove at least most of the obscurities that I am listing here. And I still have a long list to publish.

I would have had a lot to contribute. First it was refused and now I will not disclose my identity, because I am risking severe commercial pressure..... I have seen that happen...

----------------------
(1) The requirement to thoroughly document code is the very first and most holy law of software development that I am not willing to discuss. This is the most widely acknowledged rule in the software industry.

Who denies this cannot be taken seriously!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition on the 24. April 2009 made as a comment:

Jarober wrote:

What Randal was asking for was actual bug reports, as opposed to comments in a blog or a mailing list. Seaside - like most software products - has a standard way of accepting bug reports. You seem to expect to have your reports taken as gospel without going through the standard procedure.

My answer:

Hello Jarober,

Thank you for explaining what Randal meant but I did understand that perfectly well.

The point is that this is not a matter of procedures but of acknowledging the need and justification for (at least some of) my proposals and critics.

The reaction of almost all of the mailing list writers showed me, just like the earlier history, that there is not a minimum consensus on the need for change and improvement. People seem to be happy with the current state. I am not.

Not even the need for documentation was acknowledged - neither before my blog nor now.

So what would any entries in the bug reports help if there is not the slightest understanding, agreement and approval by the Seaside advocates that his situation is unsustainable?

I had offered my help and contributions. Both were rejected. Only now this public blog disturbs your graveyard peace.

They were happy without documentation for more than 7 years! Renggli rather writes long explanations on the mailing list than add this to the code. See "Not learning from mistakes".

Frankly: It's not me that has to change attitudes. All you (plural) are after is explained in "Social standing outperforms facts".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addition on the 25. April 2009:

Jarober wrote:

Not exactly. There's an old adage: "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar".

What you're doing is yelling at people, and people don't like being yelled at. Yes, going off on a rant is enjoyable, but take it from me - it doesn't help, and it hurts a lot.

Back during my days at ParcPlace, any good points I made were completely ignored, due to the vitriol with which they were delivered. I managed to poison a number of relationships at Cincom the same way during my first couple of years here, and it's taken me years - yes years - to dig my way out of that pit.

If your intention is to offer advice that will be listened to, stop calling people names, stop saying that Seaside stinks, and just dispense with the attitude. I'm sure the venting makes you feel better, but believe me, it makes what you are saying end up completely ignored.

It doesn't matter whether you think that's right, or whether you think that's fair - it just is. You can accept that reality and start becoming effectual, or you can keep going as you are, and be completely ignored.

My answer:

Well, Jarober,

thank you for your kind explanations, but obviously we have a substantial cultural difference, because this US American attitude of yours is not mine and never will.

I am grateful to have had lots of different influences in my youth not only from my widespread family: German-Swiss, Prussian (which is a very special sort of German), a smaller part English with a little spice from Wien, another different German mentality.

Maybe the great fault of most people in the USA is that they are completely unwilling to accept other mentalities. Could be that this is one of the many great problems that the world has with the USA (that is not against you personally).

Most in Europe have learned to take the best out of each variant. That's even what we joke about in this famous story about Europe in heaven and Europe in hell.

My home country is the best example: Our mentalities differ from one valley to another and essentially we love that.

Variety id good. "Melting pot" is bad. It leads to the smallest common denominator.

I assume that this US mentality described by you has led to today's situation in the US industry, namely the car industry. This is at least what people at Opel and Ford in Germany report (I know insiders well). Immune to advice! Nothing more to say!

I don't rely any more on the Seaside mailing list, they have had their chances several times. Now those with open mind can join in to my future activities.