<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [Modules] Components or Modules??</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Do you have a link to NewtonOS soups?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I think your concept of Viewpoints is like my UserSpace, no? It is also the context of an OasisModule, I believe. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Cross space references would be an interesting problem, that I have been toying with for the past year or so (see AddressSpaces in the outdated, and limited Chatter). I'm getting ready to ask Allen about this in Firewall..:)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>- Rob</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr [<A HREF="mailto:jecel@merlintec.com">mailto:jecel@merlintec.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:20 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cc: modsqueak@bluefish.se</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: [Modules] Components or Modules??</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I have to agree that a layered approach that can be developed step by </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> step from the present system is the best choice for Squeak. I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> have gone </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in the opposite direction for my own project since integrating the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> different aspects and starting from a clean slate can make a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> simple and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> synergetic solution possible. See how my design is coming along at </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <A HREF="http://www.merlintec.com:8080/software/8" TARGET="_blank">http://www.merlintec.com:8080/software/8</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Feel free to steal any ideas there, though I am not sure it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> would work </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in a system as complex as Squeak.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> One problem in the components and modules debate is that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> there are two </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> separate system views that are not being explicitly stated. Most </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> programming languages are of the "blue print" kind - you can read one </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> long text and everything about the system that will exist at </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> runtime is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in there. Squeak is a "living system" and the sources are no more a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> complete description of it than the humane genome is all </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> there is to a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> person. You need DNA *and* a cell to get a new cell.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Both systems have their advantages and their problems. The ANSI </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> declarative Smalltalk effort is an attempt to get blue print </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> advantages </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> in Smalltalk, for example. My impression is that many modularization </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> proposals are coming from the same direction.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On the other hand, NewtonOS's soups seemed to me like an attempt to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> have a modular living system.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Can we have both? If not, what do each of us want?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -- Jecel</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>