Dear all,
I need to use many words to explore why I can't understand current 
Squeak code. I believe the reason is a profound one, and I hope some of 
you have the patience to read about it.

Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said
  "/But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified 
writing software for all of us.//
//We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk."

/As to MVC, it was received with acclamation when I first presented it 
at PARC in 1978, and people suggested I should make it the theme of my 
article in the special Smalltalk issue of Byte. I couldn't understand 
it; MVC was so simple and obvious that is was not worth writing about 
it. Nevertheless, people seem to have problems understanding MVC. It 
took me a long time before I gleaned what was going on. The explanation 
is a deep one, rooted in our different mental paradigms.

 From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for 
managers in the shipbuilding industry:

      Every manager has their own computer that they use for augmenting
    their mind. The manager understands their software and ideally
    writes it themselves. Managers delegate conversations with other
    managers to their computer's M-to-M network. (Marked with a heavy
    black line in the figure). I chose "distributed planning with
    central control" as my example project. Each manager creates a plan
    for their department, using apps suited to their particular needs. A
    */distributed algorithm/* ensures consistency across departments.

I came to PARC in 1978 and could immediately relate to the Smalltalk 
image with its universe of collaborating objects. Alan's definition of 
object-orientation fitted my Prokon model: "Thus its semantics are a bit 
like having thousands and thousands of computers all hooked together by 
a very fast network."

MVC prescribes a network of communicating objects. Any object can fill 
one or more positions in the network as long as it has the required 
behavior; their classes are irrelevant. It's so simple that it's not 
worth writing about it.


====================

The work on this post was interrupted at this point by an unexpected 
week in hospital. It gave me quiet days of pondering the futility of 
what I am doing and I will be terminating my memberships in the Pharo 
and Squeak mailing lists. I have also deleted most of the old draft of 
this message and will quickly conclude with two observations:

 1.


    The Smalltalk image is a universe of communicating objects. I call
    it an object computer. It can be seen as the model of an entirely
    new kind of computer, a model on a level closer to the human mind
    than the von Neumann model of 1948. The new model is
    communication-centric and should supersede the ubiquitous
    CPU-centric model as soon as possible. Working out the details of
    this idea could make an exciting and disruptive Ph.D. thesis.
 2.

    Smalltalk is called a programming language. It is a curious one,
    very different from well-known languages like Java with their syntax
    and semantics. Smalltalk, as a programming language, does not have
    the concept of a program. Smalltalk, as a class-oriented language,
    does not have syntax for the declaration of a class. Smalltalk, as
    an object-oriented language, can't describe how objects collaborate
    to achieve a goal. You appear to be happy with this state of
    affairs, at least, I see no sign of anybody wanting to move on from
    the unfinished Smalltalk language to a mature development
    environment. I do not find it satisfactory and it is not acceptable
    to the intended managers populating the distributed system shown in
    the first picture. Consequently, I have done something about it as
    described in my SoSym article "/Personal Programming and the Object
    Computer./" I am tired of being alone in my endeavors and this ends
    my work with Squeak and other Smalltalks. I wish you health and
    happiness wherever you happen to be.

Trygve
Personal programming and the object computer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3

-- 

/The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborateto achieve 
a goal. /
Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no <mailto:%20trygver at ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info
Norway                     Tel: (+47) 468 58 625

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20201002/638db211/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kjjbmoogpajdimke.png
Type: image/png
Size: 45740 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20201002/638db211/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cljooepacomafihh.png
Type: image/png
Size: 22069 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20201002/638db211/attachment-0003.png>