Hi Piero!, sorry, but I consider
 this topic interesting to be copied to Squeak & SUGAR's list...

[please be patient with this little introduction]
If you can read Spanish, please go to http://www.sugarWeb.com
You will find there a lot of interesting material about Smalltalk (in 
Spanish)
 and an active mail list about Smalltalk and Object Tecnology
 for Spanish spoken people.
We (Xavier Alvarez and I) founded SUGAR (the Smalltalk User Group
 of ARgentina) 3 (or 4?) years ago because we saw that smalltalkers
 does not talk about their works.
One of the things I saw is that the Smalltalker didn't talk because they
 didn't have "big problems" working with objects... [they don't know
 something too important to talk about. big problems are
 many "small" problems...]
The wrong thing is that people didn't know all the thing that
 was been done in Smalltalk.

We study this side effect of smalltalking (all people see their objects
 and not see/talk each other) and founded SUGAR.
Now SUGAR is a group that exceeds Argentina limits;
 but for us is the definition of the smalltalk community in our country.

But why I said it to you?
because we also learn that Smalltalk is something more
 than a language+tools...

>> Smalltalk si not a language. Smalltalk is a place.
>interesting sentence.....:;
One of the most difficult things to teach
 (when you teach Smalltalk and Object Technology)
 is the notion that there is a REAL Technology change.

When, we, mere smalltalkers speak about Smalltalk to "conventional" ;^)
 people; immediately the people try to match our sentences to their
 well known world of languajes and tools.

I introduce Object Technology principles (Smalltalk principles)
 to people writing  the sentences:
    Object Technology  (O.T.)  or Object Environment (OE)
and
   Object Oriented Languages (O.O.L)
then I make the people read each world to know
 what it says and what does NOT say...

O.T.  is the TECHNOLOGY to work with Objects.
Object Environment is a place with things(called objects)
  , Smalltalk is an OE, then is a place.

O.O.L are Languages (not a technology change), and ORIENTED to objects
 not really WITH objects. In OOL there is a pointing to OT, but only as an 
orientation,
 not as reality.

IN an object environment, we are embedded in a virtual world of objects,
 creating, manipulating, touching them.
Our activities are not declarative, but gestural (toucing, repairing, 
building them)

When you teach OT in that way, people can see that there
 are something more that languages and tools to program computers.

Using conventional technology, we humans, talk to the computer
 as if it is a person too.
Computers was a mirror reflecting the working power of the human.
 (you can see old movies where "the machine" attacks humans
 and having human-like roles)
In this technology the power of the language is very important.
We can do all the actions that can be expressed by language.

Now in the network era, we have learned that we have virtual
 objects; and each object has a language.
Now we talk to objects, and the machine disappears...
Now the machine is a place, an environment.

>>  our brains, but also because IT is important for our "mind contents"...
>eh eh....this is a very phylosophical question....let's talk about it
Now, the point is:
   Do whe use computers to do our work?
or as a medium where information can migrate and be more active.
(can migrate prior to the dead of the host)

I am currently studing evolution of Smalltalk
 environments (at slow speed, because I must work
 in commercial development too,
 always using Smalltalk from 1987).
I have placed some references at sugar's web site,
 and many are announced at the sugar's mail list.
You can find an interesting document (in Spanish)
 at http://www.sugarWeb.com/Theory/StGen.htm

> You can read "Behavior of Information"
> http://www.truxton.com/~trux/etc/boi/index.html
[...snip...]
>i have read it a little...in the first chapter he has written about
>tha fact that information lives...it is surprising for me !! However i
>haven't figured out what is the purpose of that book...and you ?
I think the purpose is to transmit new points of view
 to understand the nature of information
 as is (not as we, humans want to see it).
There, you will find a very interesting material explaining abstraction
 and classification techniques as a well known mechanism
 to propagate information. Applying this kind of thinking
 to our Object Environments can be used to know what "we" really
 are doing when we build virtual (non-material) spaces.

Other interesting pointers to related material
  http://www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Memetics/index.html
  http://www.physics.wisc.edu/~shalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
  http://www.tufts.edu/as/cogstud/papers/time&obs.htm
  http://www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Memetics/index.html
  http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/

Now, we can talk about the Smalltalk "language"... ;^)
We know that Smalltalk is a place (full of objects).
But actually we can't talk to the objects in "natural" language.
We cant touch them with our hands and talk them in a friendly manner...
Our object machines (actually computers) are very rudimentary;
 we use rigid syntactic languages and ony a finger
 (mouse, click, doubleclick, drag&drop) to comunicate
 with virtual objects.
Unfortunately the computer language to communicate
 with objects is called Smalltalk too!
Now, the language of communication between objects
 is also called Smalltalk.

Imagine a (near) future when we can take an object (aCollection)
 in our hands and pick an object from it.
This action is the same of sending the message #at: to aCollection;
But the message is not said explicitly (the language disappears,
 only the "motion" (spreading) of information is done).
We can change the syntactic rules (Language)
 of an Smalltalk Environment and it will continue
 been an Smalltalk environment.
We can change it's syntax or does not send messages explicitly,
 But it will be an Smalltalk.
Then Smalltalk is not a language; but currently HAVE
 a language (also called Smalltalk) and tools like browsers
 & inspectors.

The future of a language is to be replaced by another.
The future of an environment is an evolved environment.
Now a reflection for fun: what is the future of Java? ;^)

 Algol / Fortran / Pascal / Prolog / Modula / Ada / C / C++ / Java / Java++ 
;^)
They all have in common that are languages, and the human talks
 to the computer... (now object oriented)
Java, C or Fortran are specimens of Language species.
Your Smalltalk, as my Smalltalk are specimens of Smalltalk species.

The REAL technological change is to HAVE objects;
 to live with them, and evolve with them in an stable environment/system.
If the objects are all virtual, real or a mix; does not care.

[now you can stop reading] :^)
- - - - - cut here - - - - -
A "virtual space" of objects is not only some communicating objects 
(sending messages).
They define an environment, with relations and physical properties.
Our objects are the atoms of our virtual worlds.
All things evolve in parallel in Nature, and we humans study Nature from 
things of size similar to us, to the greatest (universe) and smallest 
particles (subatomic particles).
Provably because God creates the Universe and place us saying we must do 
things as he did.
But, in real world all things has been created (by God), and human can't 
create anything?
We can only mix the things and try to understand them.
But where can we create?
We can create in our minds, using our imagination power.
With imagination we can create new worlds and do the noblest thing.
Now with Smalltalk we can place our creations outside our minds
 and do not kill them (to fileOut/printOut a class is like placing a dead
 butterfly in a book; it can look fine, but it only can fly in our mind;
 [here you can think again in Object Environment vs. Object Oriented 
Languages]).
Now we can create our virtual/active worlds.
But we have ony one processor by world and we have only atoms (objects). 
:^(
The construction of molecules (frameworks) has begun, but only
 recognizing that there is a physics of our system, we can start
 to think in a chemistry and biology of a virtual world.
- - - - - cut here - - - - -

bye,
Ale.
Ah, remember to visit http://www.sugarWeb.com
 if you can read Spanish...


----------
De: 	Piero Campanelli[SMTP:pc at skylink.it]
Enviado el: 	Viernes 26 de Noviembre de 1999 19:38
Para: 	Alejandro F. Reimondo
Asunto: 	RE: Why i use Squeak ???


Hi Alejandro !!

> Smalltalk si not a language. Smalltalk is a place.

interesting sentence.....:;

> There, we can create our creatures and help them to evolve.
> I use Smalltalk(Squeak) because I can HAVE the power of creation.

this is very poetic....probably you're a very creative guy ...;)))
Squeak is a tool for a developer as the paper is a tool for a
poet...but what do you do with your creativity and
Squeak...??? (sorry..i think to be a poor creative :)

>  our minds an move (using Internet) at speed of light.
> I think that we use Smalltalk (object environment) because
>  it is important to us to export our mind contents outside
>  our brains, but also because IT is important for our "mind contents"...

eh eh....this is a very phylosophical question....let's talk about it
!!!!

> You can read "Behavior of Information"
> By Luc Claeys
>
> http://www.truxton.com/~trux/etc/boi/index.html

i have read it a little...in the first chapter he has written about
tha fact that information lives...it is surprising for me !! However i
haven't figured out what is the purpose of that book...and you ?

Thank you ...
Piero