Absolutely Gary! absolutely!
Not flaming. Just little too intense. sorry!
I actually thought you were flaming me!
You sound like a pretty "clean slate". I envy you: uncluttered,
expectations.
Squeak is not perfect but is more perfect than all the other procedural
languages.
It is a fun language as well as being a great scientific tool.
In fact it is too perfect, too specific:
"intensibility" (of thought) gives in to "extensibility" (of action); design
to desire.
After all the idea of wyswyg originated in Smalltalk but, it has a systemic
weakness.
The DESIRE for action transcends the NEED for DESIGN.
The clue to smalltalks specific failure lies in its very specific strength;
poly-morph-ism (parent to child).
In the bad ole days, the command to hate, was the "goto".
Now, it seems some people need to restore some thing that looks like a goto.
Why? Is it because they often find themselves on a wrong "branch", cannot
afford to backtrack and are looking for a quick n nasty  opportunity to jump
to a neighbouring branch, in the expectation that it will be the right one
this time?
Now Gary that is a veeerry serious design problem.
The designers of smalltalk overlooked iso-morph-ism (auties and uncles).
Now the designers, instead of going back to basics, are using (or abusing)
the enthusiasm that goes with activism to "hack" their way out of a
conceptual problem.
It worries the [graybeards] too I can sense it (in their silence).
By the way, in Aboriginal culture, iso-morph-ism is more general than
poly-morph-ism: aunties and uncle relationships transcend parent-child
relationships. So they are always in the correct universal.
Anyway Gary.
have lots of fun!
Justin




----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Back to Kant


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Back to Kant
>
>
> > Yes Gary! Most certainly.
> > And Joe and his family also have the right to exit an expressway without
> > another Joe coming down the entry lane and wiping out his family, or
some
> > other Joe flying in his office window.
>
> That's not what I said.
>
> > It is called protocol. Without which we would have no communication at
> all,
> > no web, no civilisation, no humanity, not even a Squeak. Even animals
and
> > plants have it.
>
> That's what I said.
>
> >t is what Smalltalk is all about.
> > The discussion is really about the best protocol for each and every
> > situation in any public space.
> > It is your right to pee in your own bathwater and then drink it, if that
> is
> > what you really "want".
> > Joe the box, doing whatever he wants, when he wants, how he wants, is a
> > crass distortion of the concept "freedom".
>
> That's not what I said. If Joe wants to leave home and go travelling and
> live in the country of his choice and associate with the people of his
> choice I'd be very disappointed if you'd want to  police him and call him
a
> criminal.
>
> > Freedom has nothing to do with wants (desires). It has everthing to do
> with
> > "necessity" or law: the glue that binds "cause to necessity". The
concept
> > that Kant was driven to defend.
> > Baruch Spinoza said that "freedom is the recognition of necessity".
> > If we can turn necessity (needs) into wants instead of wants into needs
> then
> > we will all be a lot safer.
> > Following  "desire" we satisfy wants following "design" we satify needs:
> > sorry! design wins.
>
> Yep, design of objects with increased capacity of freedom would be cool,
I'd
> love to be able to take BookMorphs out of Squeak and put them in a web
page.
>
> No flames please, I'm not criticising Squeak there's just some extra
> characteristics I'd like to play with. I'm new to computing and Squeak,
Java
> etc to me are probably equivalent to what punched cards and BASIC were to
> some people on this list. And I don't imagine that anyone began using
BASIC
> and thought '"Wow, this everything I want from a language"
>
> Regards,
> Gary
> Let's not argue.
>
> > regards
> > Justin
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net>
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:14 AM
> > Subject: Re: Back to Kant
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alan Kay" <Alan.Kay at squeakland.org>
> > > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:10 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Back to Kant
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ken --
> > > >
> > > > At 11:37 AM -0700 10/11/01, Ken Kahn wrote:
> > > > >Philosophy intersects programming languages at least in two places:
> > > > >
> > > > >1. A language designer is designing a world with an ontology and
> > > > >episptomology. I think this is what Alan mean by Smalltalk being
too
> > > > >Platonic. Think about the different world views inherent in a class
> > based
> > > > >OOPL than in a prototype based one.
> > >
> > > > This was exactly the sense of my remark.
> > >
> > > That isn't how I understood that remark at all, I understood it to
mean
> > that
> > > objects were too dependent on the hierarchy and the system. And
ideally
> > that
> > > objects should have 'rights to freedom' and not just be imprisoned
> within
> > > the system they were created in.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't Joe the box have rights to travel to the system of his
choice,
> > the
> > > and to talk to objects of his choice ?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>