<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Three Threads Of Squeak</title></head><body>
<div>Basically, there were 3 big design phases for Smalltalk. The main
architect for the last two (ST-76 and ST-80) was Dan Ingalls. The
intent of Squeak was to start with ST-80, upgrade it to the 21st
century, and then use it as (a) a base to experiment with children's
and "the rest of us" scripting, and (b) as a metalanguage to
produce a completely better essay at OOP.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I would say that all but (b) got done pretty well (and there is
still a lot of potential for (b)).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Alan</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 8:41 AM -0800 11/5/01, Russ Van Rooy wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font size="-1">I'm not sure which
article you are talking about Justin, but from trying to follow this
discussion, you might do well to read the early Squeak
"manifesto" called "Back to the
Future</font></tt><font face="Times New Roman" size="-1"> The Story of
Squeak, A Practical Smalltalk Written in Itself " which was
authored by</font><font face="Times New Roman"> Dan Ingalls Ted
Kaehler John Maloney Scott Wallace and Alan Kay . This paper lays
out the architectural foundations of Squeak. From it you will be able
to glean that Squeak and smalltalk is *not*
"</font><tt><font size="-1">being merely the result of
"bits n pieces", patched together" rather a lot of
deliberation and critical thinking went into the design of Squeak .
Check it out from here:</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html"><tt
><font
size="-1"
>ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html</font></tt
></a><tt><font size="-1"> .</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font size="-1">- Russ Van
Rooy</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> <br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jwalsh@bigpond.net.au">Justin
Walsh</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org"
>squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 05, 2001 1:18
AM</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: Three Threads Of Squeak</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">For the sake of accuracy would
someone, who has seen that article, please point me to
it.</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">I really would like to know whether,
what I have read in various disclosures, about Smalltalk
being merely the result of "bits n pieces", patched
together, guided by Alan Kays visionary Idea of Dynbook and
significant (empirical) Conceptual discoveries from various
universities and private companies.</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">regards</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Justin</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1"> </font></tt><br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Alan.Kay@squeakland.org">Alan
Kay</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org"
>squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 05, 2001 1:55
PM</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: Three Threads Of Squeak</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>I wasn't talking about Squeak per se, but only about this
round of explorations into children's programming. I think the base of
Squeak (and the children's stuff could be a lot better).</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Cheers,</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>Alan</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>-------</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote>At 12:43 AM +0000 11/5/01, Gary McGovern wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font size="-1">One thing is Justin,
Squeak has already been designed. According to an article that
was linked to this list a few of months ago, an article that
covered Squeak Central leaving Disney, it mentioned that 95% of the
design made by Alan had been accomplished.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Based on that, I don't see how the
design of Squeak itself can be an issue for discussion. Wouldn't those
matters be for Squeak Central to figure out? (Exception: Unless anyone
was up to the job of producing their own offshoot).</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Regards,</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Gary</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jwalsh@bigpond.net.au">Justin
Walsh</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org"
>squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 03, 2001 1:15 AM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: Three Threads Of Squeak<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">For those people who reply to me
directly: I don't really have any other layout to offer (at this place
and time) than the Hierarchy/Network model that was offered
earlier</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Concept
Hierarch level 1 or Think</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font
size="-1">Logical Hierarch
level 2 or Think/Do</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Physical
Hierarch level 3 or Do</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">and</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font
size="-1"
>Play
peer to peer This I consider the realm of the
"Autonomous" Object or Virus.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">I have cut from another public email,
to myself, a reply which, I think, expects me to decide
which thread it belongs to.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">I have an opinion but, to avoid
controversy, I reproduce it here again for the readers of this thread
to respectfully, analyse, remembering that the content not the person
is relevant.</font></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">The attached pdf demonstrates at least
one others point of view. </font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>Justin,<br>
<br>
In this OS as Squeak Schema you describe, how do you answer this
question?<br>
<br>
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how
many<br>
waffles does it take to cover a dog house?<br>
<br>
Jim<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Is it technically feasible for
say, a list like this one, on command, to be sorted on the above
4 (?)</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">threads?</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Currently on Open Outlook I only
have: From, Subject and Receive.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----<br>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jwalsh@bigpond.net.au">Justin
Walsh</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org"
>squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:05 PM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Re: Three Threads Of Squeak<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Missing attachment</font></tt><br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jwalsh@bigpond.net.au">Justin
Walsh</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org"
>squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:04 PM<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> Three Threads Of Squeak<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Building professional software is like
building a, building:</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Three stages:</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font
size="-1"
>Concept requires<span
></span> Designer ~ ideas</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font
size="-1">Logistic
requires Architect ~ concepts</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Construct
requires Builder ~
objects</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">One tool, three threads. Designers
don't lay bricks and Brickies don't design
buildings.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">There are those that just like playing
so the above order doesnt matter unless the play is a professional
activity. In that case more threads may be added to the
list.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">It is not productive to confuse these
different threads. It leads to insult and counter
insult.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Generally speaking anyone who has ever
been a designer will understand the role of policy, philosopy,
religion: in some countries if the building faces the wrong direction
nobody will live or work in it.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Anybody who has ever been
a brickie will understand the role of initiate, inventiveness,
imagination ie most of the tools we find at the floor level have been
created by workers "laying bricks" or to stretch a metaphor,
"writing code".</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Sandwiched in between are the
Logicians who use yet another set of tools to ensure that Designs
correspond with Objects (of design).</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">We don't have to like, understand,
accept, .., each other. Just respect each other.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Each has a different vision for
Smalltalk that is all.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><tt><font size="-1">Attached is one person view on the
matter</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote><tt>--</tt></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
</body>
</html>