<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: Three Threads Of Squeak</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<P>Daniel H. H. Ingalls wrote: </P>
<P>"The purpose of the Smalltalk project is to provide computer support for the
creative spirit in everyone."..</P></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Justin:</FONT></P>
<P>As was elaborated in "Three threads .." there is more than one level involved
in the <U>actual</U> use of a system prot-typing language like Smalltalk.</P>
<P>Smalltalk is seen by <I>Ingalls </I>to be a "tool" for the creative
spirit.</P>
<P>However there are in fact three levels of the creative spirit: </P><B>
<P>Conceptual</B> No reliable tools available</P><B>
<P>Logistical</B> No reliable tools available</P><B>
<P>Construction</B> This is where Smalltalk, the tool, was originaly targeted.
and yes! no other tools can beat it. Its idea is to encourage children
to <B>play</B> with computers and thereby learn.</P>
<P>Play as a (dubious) method for the development of children is not
satisfactory in the adult world of business. Here, Smalltalk is hard pressed
surviving.</FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"> </FONT><FONT face="Courier New"
size=2>Cincom is marketing VisualWorks as a serious business modeling
tool.</FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2> Unless it deals with original
design short fall it will surely fail. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman">"Our work flows from a vision that includes a
creative individual and the best computing hardware available.
"..</P></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Justin:</FONT></P>
<P>The Vision Statement(Alans actually), the foundation stone of any System,
clearly says that Smalltalk was meant to be a tool for the creative individual.
The architypal creative individual was <B>Piagets</B> (the child behaviorist)
<B>child</B>.</P>
<P>Piaget:</P></FONT><FONT face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>
<P>http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761557692&cid=10#p10</P>
<P>"... Behaviorists encouraged experimental studies and were responsible for
moving child psychology into the mainstream of psychology. Although they
contributed much to the study of children, their concepts eventually were viewed
as being <U>overly narrow</U>...."</P></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Justin: Please note "overly narrow"</FONT></P>
<P>By rights, if Smalltalk is be more than a tool for the manipulation of
children by computer programmers then it must be redesigned to incorporate the
<B>Conceptual and Logistal needs of adults </B>that have used it ie Wall St, the
CIA, Bankers Trust, Macquarie Bank etc, from the begining. </P>
<P>All the hacking and patching in the world will not achieve that. </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></P>
<P></P>
<P>"We have chosen to concentrate on two principle areas of research: a language
of description (programming language) that serves as an interface between the
models in the human mind and those in computing hardware,"... </P></FONT><FONT
face="Courier New" size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Justin:</FONT></P>
<P>It is clearly not succeeding because of the reasons previously
given.</P></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">
<P>"and a language of interaction (user interface) that matches the human
communication system to that of the computer. Our work has followed a two- to
four-year cycle that can be seen to parallel the scientific method:</P>
<DIR>
<DIR>
<P>Build an application program within the current system (make an observation)
</P>
<P>Based on that experience, redesign the language (formulate a theory) </P>
<P>Build a new system based on the new design (make a prediction that can be
tested) "</P></DIR></DIR></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Justin:</FONT></P>
<P>The above empirical scientific method is questionable.</P>
<P>If you study the method closely is parallels the actual empirical method of
the behaviorist (above).."</FONT><FONT face=Verdana color=#000000 size=2>their
concepts eventually were viewed as being <U>overly
narrow</U>...."</P></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
<P>The rest follows pretty much in the same vein. </P></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<P>The Smalltalk-80 system marks our fifth time through this cycle. In this
article, I present some of the general principles we have observed in the course
of our work. While the presentation frequently touches on Smalltalk
"motherhood", the principles themselves are more general and should prove useful
in evaluating other systems and in guiding future work. </P>
<P>Just to get warmed up, I'll start with a principle that is more social than
technical and that is largely responsible for the particular bias of the
Smalltalk project: ....</P>
<P></P></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Alan.Kay@squeakland.org href="mailto:Alan.Kay@squeakland.org">Alan
Kay</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org">squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 06, 2001 6:10
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Three Threads Of
Squeak</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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 cite type="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 cite type="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 cite type="cite"><TT><FONT size=-1>- Russ Van
Rooy</FONT></TT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite type="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 cite type="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></BLOCKQUOTE></X-SIGSEP></BODY></HTML>