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
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com 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.
Interesting, whayt kind of stuff she is doing with the MOOSE image ?
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.
I also try to push more and more MOOSE as a modelling platform. Yes Pharo4Modelling is maybe a good name.
Regards,
Interesting, whayt kind of stuff she is doing with the MOOSE image ?
Visualizing "molecular clouds”, you know the things where starts are born. Really cool stuff, I am learning a lot. Yesterday evening I’ve learnt that the Milky Way will be crunched by the Andromeda galaxy. I will not be there to experience this, but we are having a lot of fun at imagining and dreaming about all this :-)
Alexandre
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.
I also try to push more and more MOOSE as a modelling platform. Yes Pharo4Modelling is maybe a good name.
Regards,
Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
Interesting, whayt kind of stuff she is doing with the MOOSE image ?
Visualizing "molecular clouds", you know the things where starts are born. Really cool stuff, I am learning a lot. Yesterday evening I've learnt that the Milky Way will be crunched by the Andromeda galaxy. I will not be there to experience this, but we are having a lot of fun at imagining and dreaming about all this :-)
I have a similar experiment at the moment, working with some physician colleagues for a new lecture at Paris 6 University. We are mixing computer science and astronomy in order to do simulation of planets revolution. I learn also a lot of interesting stuff ;-) Unfortunately, students are using Python for this course.
Regards,
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 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
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
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@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/gtoolkit...
Doru
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.comwrote:
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
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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@openInWorld.com wrote:
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:
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/gtoolkit...
Doru
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
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
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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@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@openInWorld.com wrote:
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:
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/gtoolkit...
Doru
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.com wrote:
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
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
I agree that people are not exposed enough to what happens in Moose. At the moment, the name is GToolkit. Once it will become available in the Configuration Browser it will be more visible.
But, I hope that in a reasonable time frame, we can get it in Pharo itself. But, for that to happen, I need you lobby :).
Doru
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel@me.comwrote:
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@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@openInWorld.com wrote:
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:
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/gtoolkit...
Doru
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Alexandre Bergel <
alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
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
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Ben Coman -
Diego Lont -
Nicolas Anquetil -
Serge Stinckwich -
Tudor Girba