An interesting view on social groups and their problems
tim at rowledge.org
Sat Nov 10 19:07:06 UTC 2007
On 10-Nov-07, at 4:30 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> Does anybody here still subscribe to the idea that Smalltalk should
> be a system in particular for non-experts?
Not the 'in particular', no.
Part of the problem we will always face when trying to say what
Smalltalk is/could be/should be is that it is massively malleable.
What bits of code are 'Smalltalk'? What bits are 'applications'? Does
the question even really have a meaning?
Me, I'm an engineer of various sorts. I see things through that mind
filter; I see core capabilities and layers of extension and little
eddies of applications. I think that the fundamental simplicity and
cleanliness of the language core means that it ought to be possible to
build systems for non-expert programmers that allow them to do what
they want AND provide ways to let those same people have access to as
much depth in the system as they feel like digging into.
You can build really neat systems in any language if you want.
Providing user access to all the details down to the lowest levels is
probably hugely easier (at both ends) if you have a simple, uniform,
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Not an idiot, but plays one in his life.
More information about the Squeak-dev