14 Mar
2014
14 Mar
'14
1:54 p.m.
I just see it that way: there is a traction behind Pharo and Moose does not seem to
benefit from it. People who enter the Pharo community by using Pharo directly rarely look
at Moose, which is understandable I think. You can see this by the effort being carried on
the inspector and the explorer.
Having a name such as ‘Pharo4Modelling’ or ‘PharoOnModels' would implicitly conveys a
more powerful Pharo. Where the word ‘Moose’ tells this is something different.
Anyway, this is just a meta-thought.
Alexandre
On Mar 14, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Diego Lont <diego.lont(a)delware.nl> wrote:
Hi all,
I agree with Ben. Moose is not a bad name. But on the website there can be more focus on
the other features of Moose: that it is also applicable outside the software analysis.
Also I do like that it does not contain the name Pharo. It is primarily intended as a
tool, that needs some programming to work for your needs. That most of us use this as our
development platform, as we like to analyse our own software is secondary.
Cheers,
Diego
On 13 Mar 2014, at 16:32, Ben Coman <btc(a)openInWorld.com> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
I agree with what Alex said. I came to Moose
originally just because I knew it had Roassal, Glamour & Magritte working together in
the same image. I later discovered FAMIX stuff kind-of related to what I was doing, but
I was unable to work out how to use it for my needs and had plenty else to focus on for my
dissertation. I think you do not _need_ to change the name. If you want to reposition
your marketing of Moose to push that Moose now does more than before, you just need to
update the home page, where currently "humane assessment" takes prime spot.
Humane Assessment has its own very nice web site so perhaps a smaller presence linking to
that would be acceptable.
To reposition Moose, you could make things more explicit by splitting "Moose is a
platform for software and data analysis" into...
* Moose is for modeling
* Moose is for data visualization
* Moose is for software re-engineering
or some other combination of three-things taking up the predominant space on the web
page.
However if you wanted to align more with Pharo, then PharoModelling seems reasonable.
cheers -ben
Tudor Girba wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi Alex,
I think by Moose you mean FAMIX :). But, Moose is no longer FAMIX. FAMIX is there only
for convenience for some use cases.
Moose is now the engines. This is what makes the platform with which we reinvent
programming. I said a year ago that Moose will become the IDE. And we are almost there. We
still need a couple of extra tools like a Coder, but we can already affect development
significantly with the debugger, inspector and playground.
If you want, Moose is the engine with which humane assessment becomes a reality :).
Actually, if you just want an image with just the engines, you can get it in the gtoolkit
image:
https://ci.inria.fr/moose/job/gtoolkit/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/gtoolki…
Doru
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev remember that Moose is a "data Analysis
platform" it is not only for software, so yes somebody not working with software can
use it.
I know, but actually, I am finding myself using the moose image essentially for
GTInspector and Playground. Much more than moose itself. The Moose image is offering
something else in addition to Moose, and I think we should embrace this better.
Alexandre
>
> I have no particular objection to change the name except that changing name means
you restart from scratch and have to re-explain to people what it is ...
>
> nicolas
>
> On 13/03/2014 13:46, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The Moose image offers much more than offering moose. For example, I have a
postdoc working on Astronomy images and she is using the moose image not because of moose,
but because of what is shipped with it.
>>
>> Does something who is not interested in analyzing software may find the moose
image useful? The answer is absolutely yes.
>>
>> What about changing the name of the Moose image into something closer to what it
really offer?
>> Maybe Pharo4Modelling ? PharoModellingEdition?
>>
>> I think this discussion is important.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alexandre