Re: Laseray, contributions, ImageJ

[Jim Quinn-2]

[hidden email]            re: 100% backwards compatibility

As a lurker and enduser for many years, I would like
to see very high (99%+) backward compatibility.

Evolution, not revolution, is what got NIHImage and ImageJ
to the high utility that it enjoys today.

Thank you Wayne and company...............

regards,

JQuinn


 > Sender: ImageJ Interest Group <[hidden email]>
 > From: Raymond Martin <[hidden email]>
 > Subject: Re: ImageJ development involvement/contributions
 > To: [hidden email]
 >
 > Hi David,
 >
 > > So, why can't we have 100% backward compatibility?
 > >
 > > Are changes that would preclude this really all that necessary?
 >
 > The reason is that it is impossible to know how to make something 100%
 > backwards compatible without doing experiments first. Nobody knows exactly
 > what the functionality is yet, therefore there is no way to determine if full
 > backwards compatibility is possible.
 >
 > Moving forward in software is a process of discovery, plus in another few
 > years, 5 or 10 maybe, reinvention of at least some parts of the program will
 > have to be done again because that is the nature of computer science/software
 > engineering, domains that are still very much in their infancy. It is just
 > going to keep moving and changing. And users are going to want newer,
 > better functionality due to the needs of the domains they are applying the
 > application to.
 >
 > So it is really about how the need for change is handled and not about whether
 > it is needed.
 >
 > Raymond
 >

[Gluender-3]

With respect to the present discussion (initiated by Raymond Martin)
about altering the core of ImageJ, I should like to cite my reaction
to a similar attempt about 9 months ago:

-----------------------
...for me there is only one answer: Go ahead!

...but please leave ImageJ as is.

ImageJ is used by thousands of scientists as a valuable tool (and it
was conceptualized as such) and there exist enormous amounts of
macros and plug-ins that are used regularly over long periods of
times without the need of adaptation. Most of us use ImageJ as a tool
and besides many other features we love the ease of rapid prototyping
by using the macro language.

 From a programmers point of view things may look differently, but
this is an old story going back to the early days of computers when
there were people who wanted to use computers to solve problems and
those who wanted to refine programming...
-----------------------

In a subsequent post I've added:

-----------------------
Lets wait and see if and when any re-conception of ImageJ will reach
thousands of regular users.
(At present this list has more than 1600 [9 months later: 1700!]
recipients and I guess the number of users to be at least 5 times
larger).

Please keep in mind that there are many users of IJ-macros/plug-ins
who have no idea about how they are coded. If some change of IJ
requires to adapt macros--even if its a single char--then hundreds of
users will be unable to further evaluate their data. Evidently the
vast majority of users is happy with the features provided by ImageJ.

Time will tell whether an alternative version of IJ will ever gain
comparable success. Did anybody think about (long term) support?

Again: "Go ahead" (et bonne route!)
-----------------------


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

>[hidden email]            re: 100% backwards compatibility
>
>As a lurker and enduser for many years, I would like
>to see very high (99%+) backward compatibility.
>
>Evolution, not revolution, is what got NIHImage and ImageJ
>to the high utility that it enjoys today.
>
>Thank you Wayne and company...............
>
>regards,
>
>JQuinn
>
>-------------------------
>  > Hi David,
>  >
>  > > So, why can't we have 100% backward compatibility?
>  > >
>  > > Are changes that would preclude this really all that necessary?
>  >
>  > The reason is that it is impossible to know how to make something 100%
>  > backwards compatible without doing experiments first. Nobody knows exactly
>  > what the functionality is yet, therefore there is no way to
>determine if full
>  > backwards compatibility is possible.
>  >
>  > Moving forward in software is a process of discovery, plus in another few
>  > years, 5 or 10 maybe, reinvention of at least some parts of the
>program will
>  > have to be done again because that is the nature of computer
>science/software
>  > engineering, domains that are still very much in their infancy. It is just
>  > going to keep moving and changing. And users are going to want newer,
>  > better functionality due to the needs of the domains they are applying the
>  > application to.
>  >
>  > So it is really about how the need for change is handled and not
>about whether
>  > it is needed.
>  >
>  > Raymond

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

Raymond, I don't agree with this view. Those of us who use ImageJ on
a regular basis, be it for routine work or for rapid prototyping,
appear to be quite happy with the power of ImageJ and with the pace
in which it's power is increased and with the comfort of being served
with immediate fixes. Furthermore, substantial suggestions or wishes
are instantaneously implemented and everybody is invited to
contribute plugins or macros.

This perfect service is provided by Wayne since about 10 years now
(and about 20 if you think of Image for Mac).

In fact, I'm not aware of _users_ who ever complained about the (kind
of) coding of the core of ImageJ. Again, everybody is free to present
another kind of ImageJ but please stop trying to alter an excellent
and well-supported tool.

A final remark:
I don't know or understand why our newcomer to the list Raymond is
less happy with ImageJ, but my strong impression is that the reason
doesn't result from actually using ImageJ. His suggestions concern
features that I didn't see requested on the list, at least by users.
Furthermore, the usual way contributions were introduced in the past,
is by advice for users, image processing methods, or code (macros,
plugins). So if you think that users will be grateful for some kind
of installer, then please provide the necessary software and it will
turn out how valuable your contribution is. Unless you do it, your
laments and suggestions on this list appear somehow teasing.

Best

Herbie

[Raymond Martin-2]

On December 14, 2009 04:33:27 pm Jim Quinn wrote:
> [hidden email]            re: 100% backwards compatibility
>
> As a lurker and enduser for many years, I would like
> to see very high (99%+) backward compatibility.
>
> Evolution, not revolution, is what got NIHImage and ImageJ
> to the high utility that it enjoys today.

That is an empty idea. With all due respect to the previous work put into
ImageJ, if it were completely applicable then the program would not need this
massive re-design it is slated to go through. It would have already evolved
the functionality you desire, by having small revolutions along the way that
facilitate it, and only minor evolutionary changes would be necessary moving
forward. But a revolution is what this re-design is, no matter how you want to
look at it. So the idea does not match up with reality.

What needs to be understood by end users who do not have professional
experience doing software development is that there is a well-known
issue with users not understanding the requirements necessary to achieve
certain aims. It is very common in software engineering R&D during the
requirements gathering phase for users to ask for all sorts of capabilities
that are just impossible to implement within the constraints of the technology
or development/financial resources. On the other side of things, end users may
not know of pre-existing functionality that is relatively easy to put in
place.

As you can imagine this is a source of confusion, complaints, resistance, and
other problems that make the job all that more difficult.

I have had this experience before where users demand some functionality
and it is just not doable. They end up blaming the developers and years
later the functionality still is not there.

What is needed in this sort of situation is a balance between what the
software professionals can do on one side and what help the users, the domain
experts, can provide on the other to achieve realistic goals. This has to be
done in an ongoing consultation, where the domain experts are made aware of
the limitations of what they desire to be done.

No amount of demanding 100% backwards compatibility along with extensibility
will work if the resources cannot support it. Measuring, experimenting,
introducing releases with certain phases of support will eventually lead to a
determination of whether it is achievable or not. Those things have not
happened yet, so there seems to be a little bit of put the cart in front of
the horse here.

I wish I could instantly get across these well-know ideas from real-world
software development, but that just is not going to happen. It is not
the domain of expertise of the majority of users of the program. Try
to keep open minds about good things happening with the program,
but not necessarily unfolding in exactly the initial way imagined.

If people start closing off possibilities by just blunted stating no to
ideas that come from those who understand software I cannot imagine
how the program will get as far as it could.

Raymond

[Raymond Martin-2]

On December 14, 2009 06:16:05 pm Gluender wrote:
> With respect to the present discussion (initiated by Raymond Martin)
> about altering the core of ImageJ, I should like to cite my reaction
> to a similar attempt about 9 months ago:
>
> -----------------------
> ...
>
> Again: "Go ahead" (et bonne route!)
> -----------------------

I am not sure what your point was with that excerpt.

> >  > engineering, domains that are still very much in their infancy. It is
> >  > just going to keep moving and changing. And users are going to want
> >  > newer, better functionality due to the needs of the domains they are
> >  > applying the application to.
> >  >
> >  > So it is really about how the need for change is handled and not
> >
> >about whether
> >
> >  > it is needed.
> >  >
> >  > Raymond
>
> -------------------------
>
> Raymond, I don't agree with this view. Those of us who use ImageJ on
> a regular basis, be it for routine work or for rapid prototyping,
> appear to be quite happy with the power of ImageJ and with the pace
> in which it's power is increased and with the comfort of being served
> with immediate fixes. Furthermore, substantial suggestions or wishes
> are instantaneously implemented and everybody is invited to
> contribute plugins or macros.
>
> This perfect service is provided by Wayne since about 10 years now
> (and about 20 if you think of Image for Mac).
>
> In fact, I'm not aware of _users_ who ever complained about the (kind
> of) coding of the core of ImageJ. Again, everybody is free to present
> another kind of ImageJ but please stop trying to alter an excellent
> and well-supported tool.

What have I attempted to alter that would in any way impede the present use
if implemented? The answer is nothing. I think you have not been reading what
I wrote properly.

Nowhere have I suggested to remove or alter functionality that would
break anything. Exactly the opposite is true. I am really starting to
wonder why certain people do not see this in what I wrote.

Please show me where I wrote anything to the contrary that would indicate I
had an intention to change functionality to the point where it would stop
people from using the program and I will clear up your misunderstanding right
away.

> A final remark:
> I don't know or understand why our newcomer to the list Raymond is
> less happy with ImageJ, but my strong impression is that the reason
> doesn't result from actually using ImageJ.

You are mistaken. Using it is how I have come to my conclusions.

> His suggestions concern features that I didn't see requested on the list, at
> least by users.

Do you honestly believe that users, in your definition of them, are the only
ones capable of coming up with all the good ideas for the program?

Is that the only way that ideas can be any good?

> Furthermore, the usual way contributions were introduced in the past,
> is by advice for users, image processing methods, or code (macros,
> plugins).

Usual does not mean "only", and it does not mean "best" either.

> So if you think that users will be grateful for some kind
> of installer, then please provide the necessary software and it will
> turn out how valuable your contribution is. Unless you do it, your
> laments and suggestions on this list appear somehow teasing.

I have already attempted to discuss the idea with Wayne and posted
on the list to see if others want it. Wayne is not keen on the idea (yet?),
so even if I put the code in a derivative version there is no guarantee
it could ever be in ImageJ.

It seems to some that it is not okay to discuss ideas before implementing
them. Am I to waste my time developing something that others will not use?

In case you do not know, in software development more discussion up front
means less to fix later, contrary to what some people believe. It is often
thought that if you are not coding nothing good is happening, which is
just not true. Software is like a mental model to those that develop it.
It helps to have a clear model in mind to do a better job. Coding alone
does not provide that.

Raymond

[lechristophe]

Raymond,

It seems that you have very strong opinions about what should be or should
not be done for ImageJ, and that you now devote a significant part of your
time evangelizing ImageJ coders and users about proper software conception
and coding. Until recently ImageJ core program and function has been handled
by Wayne Rasband alone. Then projects started to enhance or refactor the
core program (ImageJX, ImageJA...) to push thing forward. The people behind
those projects have all been part of the ImageJ community for a long time,
and have proven their value by providing outstanding tools to the community
(think of Bio-Formats or Fiji), gaining credibility and authority in the
process. This put them in the best position to make things happen at the
level of the ImageJ core, and they even secured grants to do just that in
close collaboration with Wayne.

Last week you appeared on this mailing list and made it clear you have no
background on ImageJ community, history and users. If you want to be helpful
to ImageJ, I don't think the most useful thing is to lecture people about
open source philosophy and repetitively display your contempt by pasting
coding theory text book excerpts. On a related note, maybe it would be
better to develop such discussions in a dedicated developper mailing list
(like Fiji dev or ImageJX), because it is difficult to follow them here
among basic user support and bug reports threads.


Christophe

[Raymond Martin-2]

Christophe,

> Last week you appeared on this mailing list and made it clear you have no
> background on ImageJ community, history and users. If you want to be
>  helpful to ImageJ, I don't think the most useful thing is to lecture
>  people about open source philosophy and repetitively display your contempt
>  by pasting coding theory text book excerpts.

What seem to you as lectures are to others discussion on how to make something
better from our years of experience.

>  On a related note, maybe it
>  would be better to develop such discussions in a dedicated developper
>  mailing list (like Fiji dev or ImageJX), because it is difficult to follow
>  them here among basic user support and bug reports threads.

I saw no indication when signing up for this list that software development
could not be discussed. If there were another list solely devoted to that I
would have gone there. But it seems this is the proper place, so your attitude
is unfair.

I do not believe anyone is forcing you to follow the particular threads that I
am writing on and you can use an email filter to do away with them. That is
thing are usually handled on many mailing lists.

Raymond

[Raymond Martin-2]

Hi,

Even though the "list" page of ImageJ shows: "The ImageJ mailing list is a
discussion group for ImageJ users and developers." a number of users have
made it apparent that they are intolerant of software development discussions.

Perhaps a separate list would be in the best interest of all concerned.

How about it?

Raymond

[John Kershaw-4]

Just my two cents: As a user who dabbles in writing simple plugins I like
having the discussion of both user questions and developer questions in one
spot. This has worked well for keeping me aware of development issues and
learning a bit about the workings of ImageJ and has helped in improving my
simple plugins. This set up works for other open-source packages such as R.
I would join a developers group as well, but am afraid there would be
copious quantities of cross-postings. The beauty of open-source has always
been having developers and users in close contact. Simply delete unwanted
postings - I do it all the time, whether it is a developer post or a user
post - not all posts are going to apply to everyone.

JAK

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Raymond Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Even though the "list" page of ImageJ shows: "The ImageJ mailing list is a
> discussion group for ImageJ users and developers." a number of users have
> made it apparent that they are intolerant of software development
> discussions.
>
> Perhaps a separate list would be in the best interest of all concerned.
>
> How about it?
>
> Raymond
>

[dscho]

> Christophe,
>
> > Last week you appeared on this mailing list and made it clear you have
> > no background on ImageJ community, history and users. If you want to
> > be helpful to ImageJ, I don't think the most useful thing is to
> > lecture people about open source philosophy and repetitively display
> > your contempt by pasting coding theory text book excerpts.
>
> What seem to you as lectures are to others discussion on how to make
> something better from our years of experience.

Christophe, please DFTT

[Raymond Martin-2]

On December 15, 2009 09:52:08 am Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> DFTT
>

Excuse me, but please stop being insulting. You are making a fool of yourself.

Raymond

[Albert Cardona-2]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Raymond Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Excuse me, but please stop being insulting. You are making a fool of yourself.
>
> Raymond
>



Raymond,

Over the past week, you have managed to annoy just about every person
you have interacted with in this and related mailing lists. It's time
for a bit of introspection. It is hard to believe that everybody is
wrong except you.

Raymond, I really hope you are not the onset of our eternal september
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September ).

I ask you to please step back and contemplate what impact your
contributions have had in this busy week.

Albert
--
http://albert.rierol.net

[Raymond Martin-2]

On December 15, 2009 10:19:01 am Albert Cardona wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Raymond Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Excuse me, but please stop being insulting. You are making a fool of
> > yourself.
> >
> > Raymond
>
> Raymond,
>
> Over the past week, you have managed to annoy just about every person
> you have interacted with in this and related mailing lists. It's time
> for a bit of introspection. It is hard to believe that everybody is
> wrong except you.
>
> Raymond, I really hope you are not the onset of our eternal september
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September ).

Insulting again. If anything it is the continual negativity from others that
is doing that. It is almost pathological.

>
> I ask you to please step back and contemplate what impact your
> contributions have had in this busy week.

Excuse me again, but even today/yesterday there were messages on this
list from people supporting at least some parts of what I have been saying.

It is very convenient of you to overlook that. The truth is different than you
would have others believe.

I think you should contemplate that there are other programmers in the world
that may know things beyond the present knowledge of the core team.

The only thing I can assume at this point is that you and others are upset
because I am doing some things that you were previously unable to do
or think of.

Converting ImageJ from AWT to Swing, in as much as that is possible, is one of
those things. When I first mentioned I would try to do this, you and Johannes
immediately came back with negative ideas about it not being possible, because
you failed at it.

Yet the work is ongoing and it does work at least partially for me. I even
sent you and and Johannes a version to try. All that I received back were
negative comments because I did not send the source code. I cannot
see how the negativity from the both of you helps me to improve my work on
this version.

(For all those that think I am just talking, there is actually a working
development version in progress.)

It would have been more helpful if you had pointed out places where the
version was broken, where plugins do not function. I received no help.

I took a little time and contemplated why the previous effort failed, by
you/him, and it was quite obvious that it had been looked at in the wrong way.

Now when I talk about an approach to the plugins that keeps past functionality
and enables new plugins in a way that is less disruptive I receive more
negativity for seeing through the problem.

You really need to learn how to suspend your disbelief that someone new coming
onto a project can actually do something better than both of you. I may be new
to the project, but I am not new to the world, to programming, to science!

You both really need to reflect, go back and look at your first emails to me,
and realize your negative tone from the beginning where it was completely
unjustified. You are not helping anything by this continuing stance.

It just seems that you are both offended at the possibility that someone can
do better work than you both. That is a very small attitude. There is always
someone better or worse than someone else, so it is all just an attempt at
maintaining control where you really have very little.

Please do try to act better in future.

Raymond

[Grant Harris]

Indeed, DFTT !
- Grant

[Paolo Ariano-2]

Il giorno mar, 15/12/2009 alle 11.06 -0500, Raymond Martin ha scritto:
> Insulting again. If anything it is the continual negativity from others that
> is doing that. It is almost pathological.

Dear all
let's software and your code speak for you ;) in the real world we are
(also) what we are able to do and what we do ... so we all know what
most people of the list have done for people not so good at programming
as me (i've only done a not so simple .deb)

now Raymond is your turn, just show us your code

> Yet the work is ongoing and it does work at least partially for me.

good news, thanks

> sent you and and Johannes a version to try. All that I received back were
> negative comments because I did not send the source code.

why not ?

> (For all those that think I am just talking, there is actually a working
> development version in progress.)

good news, keep going on

> It would have been more helpful if you had pointed out places where the
> version was broken, where plugins do not function. I received no help.

no one is forced to help another one, it would be nice yes but please
don't force people to collaborate

> It just seems that you are both offended at the possibility that someone can
> do better work than you both. That is a very small attitude.

yes sometimes it happens, but please only the code and good results will
stop all this unusefull negativity.

so pizza, spaghetti and maccheroni
paolo

--
Paolo Ariano
www.mieleria.it

[Raymond Martin-2]

Hi Paolo,

> now Raymond is your turn, just show us your code

When I am ready. These things take time, it is not magic.

In the meantime, it is okay to discuss ideas surrounding the work
to make it better, is it not? Is there not some freedom of speech
allowed to discuss work rather than just being a code monkey?

> > Yet the work is ongoing and it does work at least partially for me.
>
> good news, thanks
>
> > sent you and and Johannes a version to try. All that I received back were
> > negative comments because I did not send the source code.
>
> why not ?

I do not have to, especially when it is not up to what I want it to be.
Remember it is public domain, not under a license which impels one
to always supply the source code when distributing. Some others
do not seem to realize this.

Also, I sent them a version because they were being annoying and seem
to think nothing was happening. Showing them was still not good enough to
quell their negativity.

> > (For all those that think I am just talking, there is actually a working
> > development version in progress.)
>
> good news, keep going on

I will persist.

> > It would have been more helpful if you had pointed out places where the
> > version was broken, where plugins do not function. I received no help.
>
> no one is forced to help another one, it would be nice yes but please
> don't force people to collaborate

Also, please don't force people to send program or source code when they
are not ready. A similar thing.

No force was involved on my part compared to the annoyance I have received
before and after sending a version. Courtesy dictates that at least some
helpful comments be in order, there was no demand for direct assistance. I
require no assistance from these persons to improve the program as I am doing,
as you may all see at some point soon.

Raymond

[dksamuel]

Sirs, we all have enough work to do (without time to discuss ideas) I think
this post has gone for long enough, Samuel, Bangalore,India

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Raymond Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Paolo,
>
> > now Raymond is your turn, just show us your code
>
> When I am ready. These things take time, it is not magic.
>
> In the meantime, it is okay to discuss ideas surrounding the work
> to make it better, is it not? Is there not some freedom of speech
> allowed to discuss work rather than just being a code monkey?
>
> > > Yet the work is ongoing and it does work at least partially for me.
> >
> > good news, thanks
> >
> > > sent you and and Johannes a version to try. All that I received back
> were
> > > negative comments because I did not send the source code.
> >
> > why not ?
>
> I do not have to, especially when it is not up to what I want it to be.
> Remember it is public domain, not under a license which impels one
> to always supply the source code when distributing. Some others
> do not seem to realize this.
>
> Also, I sent them a version because they were being annoying and seem
> to think nothing was happening. Showing them was still not good enough to
> quell their negativity.
>
> > > (For all those that think I am just talking, there is actually a
> working
> > > development version in progress.)
> >
> > good news, keep going on
>
> I will persist.
>
> > > It would have been more helpful if you had pointed out places where the
> > > version was broken, where plugins do not function. I received no help.
> >
> > no one is forced to help another one, it would be nice yes but please
> > don't force people to collaborate
>
> Also, please don't force people to send program or source code when they
> are not ready. A similar thing.
>
> No force was involved on my part compared to the annoyance I have received
> before and after sending a version. Courtesy dictates that at least some
> helpful comments be in order, there was no demand for direct assistance. I
> require no assistance from these persons to improve the program as I am
> doing,
> as you may all see at some point soon.
>
> Raymond
>

[Prodanov Dimiter]

Raymond,

I strongly suggest that you move the discussion to ImageJX Google group.
It degraded to personal attacks from all sides so I don't think that it is useful for the rest of the users.
I also suggest that you distill your ideas into a document and stop commenting on other's comment which comment on you and so ..... on.....

Dimiter