Hi Brian, This is something I'd be TOTALLY up for.
Also, your setup description sounds very similar to the setup Jeff Rose and I use to jam and hack Overtone together. In fact, we went one step further and allowed both Emacs and Vim instances to communicate with the same shared JVM. All we needed to do was to start up a swank server in addition to the server mechanism Jeff used to talk to Vim (I forget what it was called). It worked a real treat :-) One thing we'd be missing compared to Smalltalk would be a way to view each other's code. Obviously, as you eval code, it gets compiled and you lose the textual representation. We'd need to consider specific strategies for the sharing of text code in addition to a method of combining all the source for the final product (unless you want to consider the modified JVM memory to be the final product). As there will also most likely be a difference between the evaluated code on the JVM and the combined text source (as old evaled code may still be sitting around in memory) we'd also need to consider how we might deal with that discrepancy. Sam --- http://sam.aaron.name On 8 Sep 2011, at 22:36, Brian Marick wrote: > TL;DR: I have an idea for an after-hours coding experiment at the Conj. > Interested? > > > I'm at ALE2011 in Berlin. Jason Ayers gave an interesting presentation. He > works for Cincom, a maker of Smalltalk. They wondered what would happen if 8 > people programmed together on the same problem (instead of one or two). They > set up an experiment in which 8 people on 8 computers could each have their > own interface to the same Smalltalk image. (That meant that any change Person > X made to a method in the system would be instantly available to everyone > else once the compiler accepted it. It'd also be picked up by the continuous > testing system.) > > They gave the team a problem to solve and a set of steps to work through > (patterned after the way wolf packs hunt and kill prey). > > They've done multiple trials at different conferences (etc.). It sounds both > fun and interesting. And for those of us into pairing and tight > collaboration, it might be illuminating. > > As he presented, I found myself thinking that a similar thing should be > possible with 8 Emacs instances talking to one `lein swank` instance. It'd be > useful to have a sort of automatic-commit-and-push-on-file-save plus a > lightweight way of automatically picking up changes other people make. I > expect that'd be more annoying than the Smalltalk experiment -- there are > advantages to the Smalltalk/InterLisp one-image-to-rule-them-all model -- but > it might still be fun/interesting/illuminating. > > > I'd be willing to do the implementation work to allow us to run this > experiment at the Conj during after-hours or other hacking time. I'd need to > know there were interested participants and someone from the Conj > organization to do logistics. (A table that's as round as possible, plus > power, should suffice.) > > What say you? > > ----- > Brian Marick, Artisanal Labrador > Contract programming in Ruby and Clojure > Occasional consulting on Agile > www.exampler.com, www.twitter.com/marick > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
