John,
A 320x240 screen is just too small for programming, in Squeak or any other language. Programming is hard enough even when you have enough screen real estate...
Forgive me, but I just can not let this go un-rebuked. Many of us started our programming careers on machines like the venerable Apple II, which only had a 280x192 screen and a fixed pitch 40 by 24 text mode.
So, as Andreas mentioned, a lot of people once "knew" that you can't write an operating system in C. It seems that a lot of people now "know" that a 320 x 240 screen is too small for programming.
We really should be able to craft a version of Squeak that would be a usable development and runtime environment on a machine with the power of a 33 MHz 68K and a small display. I avoid saying a "Palm" because: 1) There are many low cost handhelds in this category. 2) The Palm OS has some limitations that could impede performance.
-Dean
P.S. This message is 40 characters wide by 37 lines, just to make a point. With a 6x8 font, it would fit completely on a 240 x 320 screen with room to spare.
Swan, Dean (2001-10-30 13:29):
John,
A 320x240 screen is just too small for programming, in Squeak or any other language. Programming is hard enough even when you have enough screen real estate...
Forgive me, but I just can not letthis go un-rebuked. Many of us started our programming careers on machines like the venerable Apple II, which only had a 280x192 screen and a fixed pitch 40 by 24 text mode.
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
s.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 08:29:30PM +0100, Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
Swan, Dean (2001-10-30 13:29):
John,
A 320x240 screen is just too small for programming, in Squeak or any other language. Programming is hard enough even when you have enough screen real estate...
Forgive me, but I just can not letthis go un-rebuked. Many of us started our programming careers on machines like the venerable Apple II, which only had a 280x192 screen and a fixed pitch 40 by 24 text mode.
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
--Chris
I wrote my first game on a 128K Mac with a 512x368 screen. Not that much larger than 320x240 which is the size of the IBM screen I used before that. I use a 1600x1200 screen now, but it doesn't feel like I have that much more space to work in than I did 18 years ago.
DAS
At 12:41 PM 11/1/2001 -0500, you wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 08:29:30PM +0100, Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
Swan, Dean (2001-10-30 13:29):
John,
A 320x240 screen is just too small for programming, in Squeak or any other language. Programming is hard enough even when you have enough screen real estate...
Forgive me, but I just can not letthis go un-rebuked. Many of us started our programming careers on machines like the venerable Apple II, which only had a 280x192 screen and a fixed pitch 40 by 24 text mode.
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
--Chris
Chris Reuter cgreuter@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca is widely believed to have written:
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
Ouch. Mind you, Chris Macie did a pretty decent Smalltalk for an Apple II with a 128k expansion memory ( I think he might have made it himself) many, many years ago.
tim
Some fantastic systems (like Butler Lampson's and Peter Deutsch's GENIE OS) were programmed completely on Model 33 Teletypes (at 10 characters a second = 300 baud).
But isn't the real point far from what highly motivated hackers and scientists can do when they are burning to do? What we are really interested in is: what is required for those who are not "burning to do" to get interested and invested in the new literacy?
Cheers,
Alan
At 11:15 AM -0800 11/1/01, Tim Rowledge wrote:
Chris Reuter cgreuter@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca is widely believed to have written:
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
Ouch. Mind you, Chris Macie did a pretty decent Smalltalk for an Apple II with a 128k expansion memory ( I think he might have made it himself) many, many years ago.
tim
-- Tim Rowledge, tim@sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim Useful random insult:- Life by Norman Rockwell, but screenplay by Stephen King.
Well Tim, since you brought it up... The only thing I know about Chris Macie's Smalltalk was the article that was written about it in Byte Magazine ( back when computer mags were worth reading... )
This list has enough history behind it to make me believe that someone out there may know more about this Smalltalk- since I like collecting these sorts of things, does anyone have any more information on this? Has anyone here used it? Do they still have it? Do they know where Chris is? I believe he may have worked at PPD at one time ( a web search years ago turned up some evidence about that ).
Curiously,
- les
----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Rowledge tim@sumeru.stanford.edu To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 1:15 PM Subject: Re: Access vs. Media
Chris Reuter cgreuter@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca is widely believed to have written:
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
Ouch. Mind you, Chris Macie did a pretty decent Smalltalk for an Apple II with a 128k expansion memory ( I think he might have made it himself) many, many years ago.
tim
-- Tim Rowledge, tim@sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim Useful random insult:- Life by Norman Rockwell, but screenplay by Stephen King.
Les Tyrrell wrote:
Well Tim, since you brought it up... The only thing I know about Chris Macie's Smalltalk was the article that was written about it in Byte Magazine ( back when computer mags were worth reading... )
This list has enough history behind it to make me believe that someone out there may know more about this Smalltalk- since I like collecting these sorts of things, does anyone have any more information on this? Has anyone here used it? Do they still have it? Do they know where Chris is? I believe he may have worked at PPD at one time ( a web search years ago turned up some evidence about that ).
Well, his last e-mail address seems to be Chris Macie cjmacie@well.com.
He is actually the guy that first talked to me about Smalltalk-80 (I believe spring '81 or '82 in Germany), though I didn't really get it until years later. He was still working on the AppleII version back then so I never saw it working.
Michael
Les Tyrrell wrote:
Well Tim, since you brought it up... The only thing I know about Chris Macie's Smalltalk was the article that was written about it in Byte Magazine ( back when computer mags were worth reading... )
I worked with Chris at Smalltalk Express in UK for a couple of years and then another couple at ParcPlace; he was on the team that built the MethodWorks product and on the teaching team. Haven't seen him in a couple of years.
tim
Speaking of the original Smalltalk-80 on old hardware, is there anyone that could share a copy of St-80 for Mac OS or St/V for DOS?
Regards, Aaron
Aaron Reichow :: UMD ACM Pres :: http://www.d.umn.edu/~reic0024/ "the only difference it makes if some dust on the clay" :: atmosphere
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Michael Rueger wrote:
Les Tyrrell wrote:
Well Tim, since you brought it up... The only thing I know about Chris Macie's Smalltalk was the article that was written about it in Byte Magazine ( back when computer mags were worth reading... )
This list has enough history behind it to make me believe that someone out there may know more about this Smalltalk- since I like collecting these sorts of things, does anyone have any more information on this? Has anyone here used it? Do they still have it? Do they know where Chris is? I believe he may have worked at PPD at one time ( a web search years ago turned up some evidence about that ).
Well, his last e-mail address seems to be Chris Macie cjmacie@well.com.
He is actually the guy that first talked to me about Smalltalk-80 (I believe spring '81 or '82 in Germany), though I didn't really get it until years later. He was still working on the AppleII version back then so I never saw it working.
Michael
-- "Knowledge is the only resource on earth that multiplies when shared." +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Rueger m.rueger@acm.org ++1 (310) 937 7196 | +------------------------------------------------------------+
Actually, another thing of intest to me would be more information about TinyTalk, which was a variant of Smalltalk that I recall had been done on a 64Kb Z-80 computer ( probably CP/M ). I did find the article about it years ago, in a very tiny newsletter or something ( it was not much bigger than a newsletter ). But really, not much more info than what I just mentioned. I believe I saw the reference to this in the August 1981 issue of Byte, probably the article about the VM. So, I don't recall who did this or wrote the article ( I should have a photocopy stashed someplace ).
- les
Les Tyrell writes:
Actually, another thing of intest to me would be more information about TinyTalk, which was a variant of Smalltalk that I recall had been done on
a
64Kb Z-80 computer ( probably CP/M ).
Are you sure it wasn't Scott Warren's Rosetta Smalltalk, which ran on a Z-80?
http://www.rosetta.com/TechHistory.html#rosetta-smalltalk
-- Duane
And yet another that I dimly recall, but have little info on. I need to start writing these things down.
But no, I am fairly certain that TinyTalk was not Rosetta. In a perfect world, I would turn around and find my 1981 issue of Byte on the bookshelf behind me and get the reference... amazingly, this is possible... and said reference would look like this:
On page 302 of the August 1981 issue of Byte: "TinyTalk was implemented on a Xerox microcomputer by Larry Tesler and Kim McCall" ...
The article I mentioned before was: "TinyTalk, a Subset of Smalltalk-76 for 64Kb Microcomputers", in Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Small Systems. This whole proceedings was not much bigger than a newsletter, and this article was about one page long. In fact, it was indeed in a newsletter- ACM Sigsmall Newsletter, vol. 6, no. 2, 1980, pages 197-198 ( ok, 1 1/2 pages ).
Very sketchy. Enquiring minds want to know! To be honest, I've long had a crazy notion of doing something like that on my old Commodore 64 ( after all, I souped it up with that big 880Kb 3-1/2" disk drive, and the 256Kb Ram Expansion Unit, and GEOS... surely it still has plenty of life left in it? ).
Thanks for mentioning Rosetta- it is easy to lose these things when we aren't looking.
- les
----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Maxwell dmaxwell@san.rr.com To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Chris Macie's Apple II Smalltalk-80 ( was Re: Access vs. Media )
Les Tyrell writes:
Actually, another thing of intest to me would be more information about TinyTalk, which was a variant of Smalltalk that I recall had been done on
a
64Kb Z-80 computer ( probably CP/M ).
Are you sure it wasn't Scott Warren's Rosetta Smalltalk, which ran on a Z-80?
http://www.rosetta.com/TechHistory.html#rosetta-smalltalk
-- Duane
Tinytalk was done by Larry Tesler and Kim McCall (I think as mentioned, on a Z-80).
Rosetta Smalltalk by Scott Warren is really worth looking at. It was a beautiful design and made some nice improvements on ST-72. I was very taken by this system.
Don't forget that the original Alto only had 128K, of which half was used for the display. ST-72 ran in the other 64K, and many things were done in it. (Still, Rosetta was an improvement in some important ways.)
Cheers,
Alan
------
At 9:38 PM -0800 11/11/01, Duane Maxwell wrote:
Les Tyrell writes:
Actually, another thing of intest to me would be more information about TinyTalk, which was a variant of Smalltalk that I recall had been done on
a
64Kb Z-80 computer ( probably CP/M ).
Are you sure it wasn't Scott Warren's Rosetta Smalltalk, which ran on a Z-80?
http://www.rosetta.com/TechHistory.html#rosetta-smalltalk
-- Duane
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 08:09:17PM -0800, Les Tyrrell wrote:
Actually, another thing of intest to me would be more information about TinyTalk, which was a variant of Smalltalk that I recall had been done on a 64Kb Z-80 computer ( probably CP/M ). I did find the article about it years ago, in a very tiny newsletter or something ( it was not much bigger than a newsletter ). But really, not much more info than what I just mentioned. I believe I saw the reference to this in the August 1981 issue of Byte, probably the article about the VM. So, I don't recall who did this or wrote the article ( I should have a photocopy stashed someplace ).
Not sure if this is what you want, but a quick Google search dug up an implementation and some sample programs at:
http://cs.ua.edu/603/programs.htm
The C++ interpreter built with no trouble for me.
--Chris
A 320x240 screen is just too small for programming, in Squeak or any other language. Programming is hard enough even when you have enough screen real estate...
Forgive me, but I just can not letthis go un-rebuked. Many of us started our programming careers on machines like the venerable Apple II, which only had a 280x192 screen and a fixed pitch 40 by 24 text mode.
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
Already been done- it was called TinyTalk.
Very little information on it, though. ( Actually, it was a port to CP/M, with 64kb of RAM ).
- les
Larry Tesler and an intern did TinyTalk. (It was a little too Forth-like for my taste)
Cheers,
Alan
-----
At 11:39 AM -0800 11/1/01, Les Tyrrell wrote:
A 320x240 screen is just too small for programming, in Squeak or any other language. Programming is hard enough even when you have enough screen real estate...
Forgive me, but I just can not letthis go un-rebuked. Many of us started our programming careers on machines like the venerable Apple II, which only had a 280x192 screen and a fixed pitch 40 by 24 text mode.
make that a Sinclair ZX81 with 1 kB RAM, which did not allow you to use every character on your 24x32 display P-)
Which reminds me--when are we porting Squeak to it?
Already been done- it was called TinyTalk.
Very little information on it, though. ( Actually, it was a port to CP/M, with 64kb of RAM ).
- les
Dean,
Hee, hee!
I got a chuckle out of your reply. And I agree--up to a point. Those who *really* want to program computers (like you) don't need a display at all. They'll use paper tape, punched cards, or even the front-panel switches. But such people are highly motivated and very exceptional. They are able to see their program in their head, or willing to use supplemental tools such as print outs and handwritten notes to work with their code.
I think programming gets much easier when you can get a lot of context in front of the programmer. The Smalltalk browser does this, and the EToy system does it even more. These tools help because we're so much better at recognition than recall. So if Mark's goal is to teach *kids* how to program, then I think a 320x240 screen is too small. Like you, I've programmed with small video screens (40x24 characters), but I would not want to inflict that on students these days. You might find that 5% of the students really take to it, but you'd alienate the other 95%.
Re:
So, as Andreas mentioned, a lot of people once "knew" that you can't write an operating system in C. It seems that a lot of people now "know" that a 320 x 240 screen is too small for programming.
You may be right, and I'd love to be proved wrong. In fact, I'd love an opportunity to prove myself wrong! There's a part of me that thinks you could get pretty far on a small screen with the right UI. But the current Squeak programming tools are MUCH too wasteful of pixels, and Squeak's facilities for window management are awkward on small, pen-based screens.
Re:
We really should be able to craft a version of Squeak that would be a usable development and runtime environment on a machine with the power of a 33 MHz 68K and a small display. I avoid saying a "Palm" because: 1) There are many low cost handhelds in this category. 2) The Palm OS has some limitations that could impede performance.
That's one of those projects I'd love to pursue some day. PocketSmalltalk does an excellent job for application deployment, but does not attempt to provide a development environment on the handheld.
-- John
P.S. I couldn't quite believe that your entire message would fit on a 240x320 screen without scrolling, but I counted the lines and, sure enough, it would! With room to spare.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Aaron J Reichow -
Alan Kay -
Chris Reuter -
David A. Smith -
Duane Maxwell -
John.Maloney＠disney.com -
Les Tyrrell -
Les Tyrrell -
Michael Rueger -
Stefan Schmiedl -
Swan, Dean -
Tim Rowledge