Three Threads Of Squeak

Justin Walsh jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Tue Nov 6 11:33:22 UTC 2001


Re: Three Threads Of SqueakDaniel H. H. Ingalls wrote: 

"The purpose of the Smalltalk project is to provide computer support for the creative spirit in everyone."..

Justin:

As was elaborated in "Three threads .." there is more than one level involved in the actual use of a system prot-typing language like Smalltalk.

Smalltalk is seen by Ingalls to be a "tool" for the creative spirit.

However there are in fact three levels of the creative spirit: 

Conceptual No reliable tools available

Logistical No reliable tools available

Construction This is where Smalltalk, the tool, was originaly targeted. and yes! no other tools can beat it. Its idea is to encourage children to play with computers and thereby learn.

Play as a (dubious) method for the development of children is not satisfactory in the adult world of business. Here, Smalltalk is hard pressed surviving. Cincom is marketing VisualWorks as a serious business modeling tool. Unless it deals with original design short fall it will surely fail. 

"Our work flows from a vision that includes a creative individual and the best computing hardware available. "..

Justin:

The Vision Statement(Alans actually), the foundation stone of any System, clearly says that Smalltalk was meant to be a tool for the creative individual. The architypal creative individual was Piagets (the child behaviorist) child.

Piaget:

http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761557692&cid=10#p10

"... Behaviorists encouraged experimental studies and were responsible for moving child psychology into the mainstream of psychology. Although they contributed much to the study of children, their concepts eventually were viewed as being overly narrow...."

Justin: Please note "overly narrow"

By rights, if Smalltalk is be more than a tool for the manipulation of children by computer programmers then it must be redesigned to incorporate the Conceptual and Logistal needs of adults that have used it ie Wall St, the CIA, Bankers Trust, Macquarie Bank etc, from the begining. 

All the hacking and patching in the world will not achieve that. 


"We have chosen to concentrate on two principle areas of research: a language of description (programming language) that serves as an interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing hardware,"... 

Justin:

It is clearly not succeeding because of the reasons previously given.

"and a language of interaction (user interface) that matches the human communication system to that of the computer. Our work has followed a two- to four-year cycle that can be seen to parallel the scientific method:

Build an application program within the current system (make an observation) 

Based on that experience, redesign the language (formulate a theory) 

Build a new system based on the new design (make a prediction that can be tested) "

Justin:

The above empirical scientific method is questionable.

If you study the method closely is parallels the actual empirical method of the behaviorist (above).."their concepts eventually were viewed as being overly narrow...."

The rest follows pretty much in the same vein. 

The Smalltalk-80 system marks our fifth time through this cycle. In this article, I present some of the general principles we have observed in the course of our work. While the presentation frequently touches on Smalltalk "motherhood", the principles themselves are more general and should prove useful in evaluating other systems and in guiding future work. 

Just to get warmed up, I'll start with a principle that is more social than technical and that is largely responsible for the particular bias of the Smalltalk project: ....


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alan Kay 
  To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:10 AM
  Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


  Basically, there were 3 big design phases for Smalltalk. The main architect for the last two (ST-76 and ST-80) was Dan Ingalls. The intent of Squeak was to start with ST-80, upgrade it to the 21st century, and then use it as (a) a base to experiment with children's and "the rest of us" scripting, and (b) as a metalanguage to produce a completely better essay at OOP.


  I would say that all but (b) got done pretty well (and there is still a lot of potential for (b)).


  Cheers,


  Alan


  At 8:41 AM -0800 11/5/01, Russ Van Rooy wrote:
    I'm not sure which article you are talking about Justin, but from trying to follow this discussion, you might do well to read the early Squeak "manifesto" called  "Back to the Future The Story of Squeak, A Practical Smalltalk Written in Itself " which was authored by Dan Ingalls Ted Kaehler John Maloney Scott Wallace and Alan Kay . This paper lays out the architectural foundations of Squeak. From it you will be able to glean that Squeak and smalltalk   is  *not* "being merely the result of "bits n pieces", patched together" rather a lot of deliberation and critical thinking went into the design of Squeak . Check it out from here:
    ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html .
    - Russ Van Rooy


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Justin Walsh
      To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
      Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:18 AM
      Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


      For the sake of accuracy would someone, who has seen that article, please point me to it.
      I really would like to know whether, what I have read in various disclosures, about Smalltalk  being merely the result of "bits n pieces", patched together, guided by Alan Kays visionary Idea of Dynbook and significant (empirical) Conceptual discoveries from various universities and private companies.
      regards
      Justin
        

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Alan Kay
        To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
        Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:55 PM
        Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


        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: Justin Walsh

            To: 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: Justin Walsh

              To: 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: Justin Walsh

                To: 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/20011106/216305c6/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list