<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><pre style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); position: static; z-index: auto; ">NC: "Are you so sure the ideas behind Smalltalk were not primarily that of
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning</a> ?"</pre><div><br></div><div>Yes. </div><div><br></div><div>Alan Kay was challenged that he couldn't write the foundations of a language below a certain level of parameters. He says,</div><div>sure I can. Comes back the next day with an outline on half a page. That's where I Smalltalk started, with an act of contrariness. </div><div>I can relate to that. </div><div><br></div><div>The Dynabook was for children and such. Even if Alan Kay shows up and says he invented Smalltalk for children, from</div><div>what I've read, I'm not buying it. I see a pattern with programmers and innovation: they follow a path they discover and </div><div>bring something into the world. Sometimes things just want to be born. They don't need a cause to justify themselves. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Chris </div></body></html>