Andres Valloud sqrmax@prodigy.net, writing about sequential thinking, cited: a theatrical production an account of a long exchange of messages which are answered? If so, how many simultaneous "processes" would a typical theatrical production have?
concentrating on the *verbal* aspects; whereas one can certainly have a verbal interchange and a non-verbal interchange elsewhere happening at the same time,
and When I was learning how to type I noticed that I'd think what to say,
again, concentrating on a *verbal* task.
I dare say we're all agreed that - people can do more than one thing at once - people can't do MANY things at once - people can only say or type one thing at a time
The question I think is interesting is whether telling students to think in terms of objects TALKING to each other makes it harder for them to think of concurrent implementations. Would some other metaphor (perhaps sending couriers with messages, or thinking about a factory with things concurrently moving from machine to machine at the same time) make it easier for them to think of and understand concurrency?
All I know about Ken Kahn's ToonTalk is what I've read in this thread, but it sounds as though uses a "physical" rather than "verbal" metaphor, so I think his observations are particularly interesting here.
Guys! Please don't take offence but, forget the "objects TALKING to each other". The point of departure of any discussion, to do with simultaneous processes, has to be in the abstract Classes. This was discussed pretty thoroughly by Aristotle. It was further investigated by Kant over 300 years ago. ie http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/ancon.html If you start too far into detail your simultaneous design will fail every time. It is just another one of those eastern tricks, like logic, Zero, Positional Notation ... That we in the west are so slow to pick up on. Unlike Mathematics where you start from the definition and end with the concept. Here we start with the concept and end with the definition (of an object). I remember A.K. saying something about inventing the future, not the past. I suggest you stick it on the fridge.
THE CLUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF ALL PURE CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING Section 2 $9 THE LOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE UNDERSTANDING IN JUDGMENTS If we abstract from all content of a judgment, and con- sider only the mere form of understanding, we find that the function of thought in judgment can be brought under four heads, each of which contains three moments. They may be conveniently represented in the following table: P 107 I Quantity of Judgments ..Universal ..Particular ..Singular II Relation ..Categorical ..Hypothetical ..Disjunctive III Quality ..Affirmative ..Negative ..Infinite IV ..Modality ..Problematic ..Assertoric .Apodeictic
As this division appears to depart in some, though not in any essential respects, from the technical distinctions ordin- arily recognised by logicians, the following observations may serve to guard against any possible misunderstanding. ..
Caio Justin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
Andres Valloud sqrmax@prodigy.net, writing about sequential thinking, cited: a theatrical production an account of a long exchange of messages which are answered? If so, how many simultaneous "processes" would a typical theatrical production have?
concentrating on the *verbal* aspects; whereas one can certainly have a verbal interchange and a non-verbal interchange elsewhere happening at the same time,
and When I was learning how to type I noticed that I'd think what to say,
again, concentrating on a *verbal* task.
I dare say we're all agreed that
- people can do more than one thing at once
- people can't do MANY things at once
- people can only say or type one thing at a time
The question I think is interesting is whether telling students to think in terms of objects TALKING to each other makes it harder for them to think of concurrent implementations. Would some other metaphor (perhaps sending couriers with messages, or thinking about a factory with things concurrently moving from machine to machine at the same time) make it easier for them to think of and understand concurrency?
All I know about Ken Kahn's ToonTalk is what I've read in this thread, but it sounds as though uses a "physical" rather than "verbal" metaphor, so I think his observations are particularly interesting here.
OOps! Correction IV Modality ..Problematic ..Assertoric ..Apodeictic
----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Walsh" jwalsh@bigpond.net.au To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
Guys! Please don't take offence but, forget the "objects TALKING to each other". The point of departure of any discussion, to do with simultaneous
processes,
has to be in the abstract Classes. This was discussed pretty thoroughly by Aristotle. It was further investigated by Kant over 300 years ago. ie http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/ancon.html If you start too far into detail your simultaneous design will fail every time. It is just another one of those eastern tricks, like logic, Zero,
Positional
Notation ... That we in the west are so slow to pick up on. Unlike Mathematics where you start from the definition and end with the concept. Here we start with the concept and end with the definition (of an object). I remember A.K. saying something about inventing the future, not the past. I suggest you stick it on the fridge.
THE CLUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF ALL PURE CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING Section 2 $9 THE LOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE UNDERSTANDING IN JUDGMENTS If we abstract from all content of a judgment, and con- sider only the mere form of understanding, we find that the function of thought in judgment can be brought under four heads, each of which contains three moments. They may be conveniently represented in the following table: P 107 I Quantity of Judgments ..Universal ..Particular ..Singular II Relation ..Categorical ..Hypothetical ..Disjunctive III Quality ..Affirmative ..Negative ..Infinite IV ..Modality ..Problematic ..Assertoric .Apodeictic
As this division appears to depart in some, though not in any essential respects, from the technical distinctions ordin- arily recognised by logicians, the following observations may serve to guard against any possible misunderstanding. ..
Caio Justin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
Andres Valloud sqrmax@prodigy.net, writing about sequential thinking, cited: a theatrical production an account of a long exchange of messages which are answered? If so, how many simultaneous "processes" would a typical theatrical production have?
concentrating on the *verbal* aspects; whereas one can certainly have a verbal interchange and a non-verbal interchange elsewhere happening at the same time,
and When I was learning how to type I noticed that I'd think what to say,
again, concentrating on a *verbal* task.
I dare say we're all agreed that
- people can do more than one thing at once
- people can't do MANY things at once
- people can only say or type one thing at a time
The question I think is interesting is whether telling students to think in terms of objects TALKING to each other makes it harder for them to think of concurrent implementations. Would some other metaphor (perhaps sending couriers with messages, or thinking about a factory with things concurrently moving from machine to machine at the same time) make it easier for them to think of and understand concurrency?
All I know about Ken Kahn's ToonTalk is what I've read in this thread, but it sounds as though uses a "physical" rather than "verbal" metaphor, so I think his observations are particularly interesting here.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Justin Walsh -
Richard A. O'Keefe