copy yourself ?

jan ziak ziakjan at host.sk
Wed May 28 16:22:42 UTC 2003


On Sun, 25 May 2003 17:35:14 -0700, David Harris wrote
> Hi-
> Good essay.  I must admit that making objects SEEM to be physical is 
> sometimes a detriment.  I then expect them to behave like a physical 
> object, and of course they don't. I have found that simulated 
> physicality only extends so far, and then it makes things more difficult.
> David
> 
> "Richard A. O'Keefe" wrote:
> 
> --- cut ---
>

it depends on what you want to work with. if you want to work with objects, 
you (or somebody else) will have to implement on objective system. if you 
want to work with functions and procedures then develop a procedural language 
and program in it.

...the key point is that we can CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT (remember that people 
have something like "free will"). i choose to work with (potentially physical-
like) objects. i want them. i do not want "mindless" data, bits and bytes. 

when i have a soundcard hardware in my computer, i want to interact 
(software) with it as with a soundcard - to see what inputs and outputs it 
has, i want the colour of the connectors to match the colour of physical 
connectors on the soundcard hardware. when i virtually connect a sound stream 
to that soundcard on my screen i want my physical speakers to play a song.

why should i not interpret some of the objects on my screen as being physical 
ones? why not to say that they ARE physical objects: when you are watching a 
movie, you think "hmm...the persons there only SEEM to be real" ? i think no, 
you really consider them to be real (but there are exceptions, e.g. matrix).

but i agree that forcing "physicality" on all computer objects is not good 
practice.

jz.

note: it seems to me that this discussion is not about "copy yourself" 
anymore.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list