I wasn't talking about Squeak per se, but only about this round of 
explorations into children's programming. I think the base of Squeak 
(and the children's stuff could be a lot better).

Cheers,

Alan

-------

At 12:43 AM +0000 11/5/01, Gary McGovern wrote:
>One thing is Justin, Squeak has already been designed. According to 
>an article that was linked to this list a few of months ago, an 
>article that covered Squeak Central leaving Disney, it mentioned 
>that 95% of the design made by Alan had been accomplished.
>
>Based on that, I don't see how the design of Squeak itself can be an 
>issue for discussion. Wouldn't those matters be for Squeak Central 
>to figure out? (Exception: Unless anyone was up to the job of 
>producing their own offshoot).
>
>Regards,
>Gary
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 1:15 AM
>Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
>
>For those people who reply to me directly: I don't really have any 
>other layout to offer (at this place and time) than the 
>Hierarchy/Network model that was offered earlier
>
>Concept      Hierarch  level 1  or Think
>Logical        Hierarch  level 2  or Think/Do
>Physical      Hierarch  level 3  or Do
>
>and
>
>Play            peer to peer    This I consider the realm of the 
>"Autonomous" Object or Virus.
>
>I have cut from another public email, to myself,  a reply which, I 
>think, expects me to decide which thread it belongs to.
>I have an opinion but, to avoid controversy, I reproduce it here 
>again for the readers of this thread to respectfully, analyse, 
>remembering that the content not the person is relevant.
>The attached pdf demonstrates at least one others point of view. 
>
>Justin,
>
>In this OS as Squeak Schema you describe, how do you answer this question?
>
>If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
>waffles does it take to cover a dog house?
>
>Jim
>Is it technically feasible for say, a list like this one, on 
>command, to be sorted on the above  4 (?)
>threads?
>Currently on Open Outlook I only have:    From, Subject and Receive.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
>
>Missing attachment
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:04 PM
>Subject: Three Threads Of Squeak
>
>Building professional software is like building a, building:
>
>Three stages:
>
>Concept        requires   Designer  ~ ideas
>Logistic         requires   Architect  ~ concepts
>Construct      requires   Builder     ~ objects
>
>One tool, three threads. Designers don't lay bricks and Brickies 
>don't design buildings.
>
>There are those that just like playing so the above order doesnt 
>matter unless the play is a professional activity. In that case more 
>threads may be added to the list.
>
>It is not productive to confuse these different threads. It leads to 
>insult and counter insult.
>
>Generally speaking anyone who has ever been a designer will 
>understand the role of policy, philosopy, religion: in some 
>countries if the building faces the wrong direction nobody will live 
>or work in it.
>
>Anybody who has ever been a brickie will understand the role of 
>initiate, inventiveness, imagination ie most of the tools we find at 
>the floor level have been created by workers "laying bricks" or to 
>stretch a metaphor, "writing code".
>
>Sandwiched in between are the Logicians who use yet another set of 
>tools to ensure that Designs correspond with Objects (of design).
>
>We don't have to like, understand, accept, .., each other. Just 
>respect each other.
>Each has a different vision for Smalltalk that is all.
>
>Attached is one person view on the matter


-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20011104/89ec96b6/attachment.htm