You've just reminded me that the paper, Design Principles of Smalltalk 80,
discussed reducing the complexity of systems.
What about these designs: no class can be completed unless the adjacent
classes in design is completed first :))))) 
Thanks,
Gary

>Agreeing completely with the above comments (complex systems will be
>composed of cells not clocks), let me add that a professional
>programmer/ engineer/ scientist always does the the "simplest thing that
>could possibly work". (Reference: XP  and TDD.)  Complexity will evolve
>by "natural selection"; complexity by "intelligent design" is almost
>always wrong.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
>> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Gary McGovern
>> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:46 AM
>> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org; Lothar Schenk
>> Subject: Re: Distributed intelligence or not
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, that's an interesting book to read. My question came 
>> from a program I made before I knew how to make an object. It 
>> was a hangman applet. It had a ui class and a domain class. I 
>> treat the methods in the domain class like objects. I thought 
>> the methods were objects. I've just been changing that applet 
>> to object style, and I'm realising that it is more 
>> complicated to write that way, maybe overly complicated for 
>> what the program does. This swarm stuff seems it might be a 
>> step up into more complexity. So more to learn........ Thanks, Gary 
>> 
>> 
>> >Gary McGovern wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm struggling a bit at the moment, trying to justify distributed 
>> >> intelligence in program design. Or if centralised is better, or 
>> >> whether there should be a shift between centralised and 
>> distributed 
>> >> depending
>> u>pon
>> >> the nature or size of of the program/system. Maybe it is 
>> because what 
>> >> I>
>> am
>> >> mostly doing is small - writing centalised seems quicker 
>> and simpler 
>> >> to write. And distributing the intelligence I do because 
>> it is good 
>> >> form ->
>> my
>> >> course texts say do it. Maybe in the long term it works better.
>> >
>> >Doing something just because someone else says so is never 
>> >satisfactory, even if it should work. Usually, there is a reason why 
>> >certain things are recommended, and this reason can be examined for 
>> >validity. Often this examination reveals specific conditions under 
>> >which a certain course of action is valid and also when it is not.
>> >
>> >With regard to your question, you may find it worthwhile 
>> reading Kevin
>> Ke>lly's
>> >book "Out Of Control", which deals with what he calls "vivisystems",
>> arti>fial
>> >systems that are modeled after the way biological systems function. I
>> fou>nd a
>> >reference to this book on Ted Kaehler's web site, and a 
>> little bit of 
>> >web>
>> 
>> >searching revealed that it is available online in its entirety here: 
>> >http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php
>> >(I just ordered my printed copy via amazon, too.)
>> >
>> >One interesting point he makes (which apparently also gave 
>> the book its
>> t>itle) 
>> >is that massively parallel self-organizing processing 
>> systems will, at
>> th>e 
>> >extreme end, be de facto uncontrollable systems, at least 
>> not in the way
>> >we 
>> >can control the linear sequential systems we have known so 
>> far. Here's a 
>> >quote:
>> >
>> >"As our inventions shift from the linear, predictable, 
>> causal attributes
>> >of 
>> >the mechanical motor, to the crisscrossing, unpredictable, and fuzzy 
>> >attributes of living systems, we need to shift our sense of what we
>> expec>t 
>> >from our machines. A simple rule of thumb may help:
>> >
>> >      For jobs where supreme control is demanded, good old 
>> clockware is
>> t>he 
>> >way to go.
>> >
>> >      Where supreme adaptability is required, out-of-control 
>> swarmware is>
>> what 
>> >you want.
>> >
>> >For each step we push our machines toward the collective, we 
>> move them
>> to>ward 
>> >life. And with each step away from the clock, our 
>> contraptions lose the
>> c>old, 
>> >fast optimal efficiency of machines. Most tasks will balance 
>> some control>
>> for 
>> >some adaptability, and so the apparatus that best does the 
>> job will be
>> so>me 
>> >cyborgian hybrid of part clock, part swarm. The more we can discover
>> abou>t 
>> >the mathematical properties of generic swarm processing, the 
>> better our 
>> >understanding will be of both artificial complexity and biological 
>> >complexity."
>> >
>> >Regards, Lothar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>