On Tuesday 06 November 2001 05:33 am, you wrote:
> 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

	So write them Justin, and stop yammering. Put yer code where your mouth is. 
Nothing in the language prevents the writing of such tools. In fact, ST, is 
the best platform I've seen for it...

>
> Logistical No reliable tools available

	Same here. Though, if by Logistal you mean code management, several such 
tools exist.

>
> 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.

	Every pyschologist out there will strongly disagree with you that "Play is 
dubious" for child development.  ;)

	Currently, there are no "serious" business modeling tools out there. If you 
say Rational Rose, I'll LAUGH!

	If you mean converting pretty UML pictures to code, you can always do that 
by hand.  It's been done before.

	If you want to make it easier, write the tools. Smalltalk's underlying 
framework is so general and flexible, that writing such tools would be pretty 
easy. Just lots of gruntwork though.

>
> "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.

	Uhm, the language is flexible enough to accomplish all of these. Heck, 
Squeak can pretty much extend itself automatically in some cases.

	Again, I say, if you think the tools are lacking, write them. Heck, this can 
be done for ANY Language, including musty old C. But I suspect it's easier 
for ST.

	Oh, and the CIA uses SmallTalk, The Analyst, a large spreadsheet/data 
management system, with a list of tricks and capabilities that makes Excel 
look bad, and was written in the late 70s...	

>
>
> "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)

	Well, it's been a lot already. ST is the product of 40 yrs of computer 
language development, and Squeak currently makes use of several extensions. 
Plus the fact you have direct access to the compiler, you can add and test 
easily.

	Again, write code....
>
> Build a new system based on the new design (make a prediction that can be
> tested) "

	Keep rewriting the language, and never get anywhere. Eventually, a 
programming language becomes "Good Enough". You have to stop rewriting it, 
and start writing apps.

	Small Talk is Good Enough. Whether or not it supports Logistics or Concepts 
is a  HIGH LEVEL problem. They are programs. You could write them in C, or 
Cobol. You could write them in assembly (which is what all programs are 
eventually).

	So again, if Squeak doesn't have the tools, I say WRITE them, and stop 
boring us with your weird writings.

	Write a UML editor, a Database code management system, etc etc.
	
	The lacking of these items in Squeak has nothing to do with the language, 
but the people willing to write them. They are TOOLS, not language 
constructs. In all your writings, you seem to have this mixed up. 

	Just because Squeak lacks these tools, does not mean it is a failure. Heck, 
look at C, it has NOTHING unless you use umpteen gazillion libs, and it runs 
on nearly anything.
 
	You seem eager enough, write them!

	And BTW, if you really think the basic Squeak dialect needs to be extended, 
then look in Compiler, and read up on Primitives.

>
> 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: ....
>

	Ugh, more hot air? Please no.

	Maybe stop writing weird essays, and start writing tools????

	-Daniel