<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>> I am tired of being alone in my endeavors...</div><div><br></div><div>I hope you won't mind one last farewell, Trygve, to assure you that you are <u>not</u> alone. The Introduction of your paper, <u>Personal programming and the object computer</u>, says:<br></div><div><div>_____________</div><div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Georgia,Palatino,serif;font-size:18px;background-color:rgb(252,252,252)">My goal is to empower laypeople to control their electronic environment with programs that they write themselves. While a professional programmer is a highly trained expert, the personal programmer writes programs for personal use and values simplicity and convenience over programming sophistication.</span><br></div><div><div>_____________</div><div><br></div><div>Which is, and has been, also, exactly my mission with Squeak. A system for people who want and need the capability of a computer, but _without_ the desire to be a developer. I've been referring to these laypeople as "power users", and have been championing for them within this community for at least the last 15 or so years, even straight to the board. Like you, I've found it challenging to convince this community that Microsoft Excel users have been waiting since 2001 for something better, but I'm here and also Stéphan Rollandin has expressed similar interests.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to collaborate in real-time, but I'm really glad you've made your work in this area accessible on-line. I've only just begun and it's already hard to stop reading this paper! I can see it's probably going to keep me up tonight, and probably add yet another project to my already long list.. :)</div><div><br></div><div>So, please, consider it joyful day, not a sad one. Your efforts in moving us further down that highway to the holy grail of Personal Computing have been successful -- it's just that it's a very long and, indeed, lonely highway. But, I believe the Emerald City is finally starting to come into view ahead, thanks to your and a few others' contributions, we may have just enough gas to get there. You may be on the exit ramp that heads west into the sunset, but your work appears to fill one of the last remaining gaps needed to complete the stack.</div><div><br></div><div>Best Wishes,</div><div> Chris Muller</div><div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 10:53 AM Trygve Reenskaug <<a href="mailto:trygver@ifi.uio.no" target="_blank">trygver@ifi.uio.no</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Dear all,<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response
said<br>
"<i>But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has
simplified writing software for all of us.</i><i><br>
</i><i>We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk."<br>
<br>
</i>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. <br>
<br>
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for
managers in the shipbuilding industry:<br>
<div align="center"><img src="cid:174f5c72ef2dce39a751" alt="" width="473" height="340"></div>
<blockquote> 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 *<i>distributed algorithm</i>* ensures consistency across
departments.<br>
</blockquote>
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." <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<div align="center"><img src="cid:174f5c72ef2af81d8f32" alt="" width="559" height="307"><br>
</div>
<br>
====================<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li><br>
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.</li>
<li><br>
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 "<i>Personal
Programming and the Object Computer.</i>" 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.<br>
</li>
</ol>
Trygve<br>
<font size="-1">Personal programming and the object computer<br>
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3<br>
</a></font><br>
<div>-- <br>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US">The
essence of object orientation is that objects <span>collaborate<span>
</span>to</span> achieve a goal. </span></i><span lang="EN-US"><br>
<span>Trygve</span> <span>Reenskaug</span> </span><span><a href="mailto:%20trygver@ifi.uio.no" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"><br>
<span>Morgedalsvn</span>. 5A </span><span><a href="http://folk.uio.no/trygver/" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">http://folk.uio.no/trygver/</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"><br>
N-0378 Oslo </span><span><a href="http://fullOO.info" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US">http://fullOO.info</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US"><br>
Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625 </span><span style="font-size:10pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
</div>