Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "/But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.// //We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk."
/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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 */distributed algorithm/* ensures consistency across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
1.
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. 2.
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 "/Personal Programming and the Object Computer./" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to make sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures consistency across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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. 2. 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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse Engineering (SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to make sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug <trygver@ifi.uio.no mailto:trygver@ifi.uio.no>:
Dear all, 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. Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "/But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.// //We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." /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. From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry: 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 */distributed algorithm/* ensures consistency across departments. 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." 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. ==================== 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: 1. 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. 2. 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 "/Personal Programming and the Object Computer./" 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. Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3 -- /The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborateto achieve a goal. / Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <mailto:%20trygver@ifi.uio.no> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the included SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM ( https://squeak.js.org/run ).
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse Engineering (SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to make sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures consistency across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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. 2. 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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
Thank you Trygve for the long-term efforts of illustrating the idea as a runnable environment, and thank you Sumim for proactively collecting interesting artifacts!
On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 3:57 AM masato sumi sumi@seagreen.ocn.ne.jp wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the included SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM ( https://squeak.js.org/run ).
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse Engineering (SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to make sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures consistency across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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. 2. 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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
Thank you Trygve,
I confirm also that the image runs very well on my Ubuntu Linux laptop with a VM compiled per http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354.
Dave
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0900, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the included SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM ( https://squeak.js.org/run ).
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse Engineering (SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to make sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures consistency across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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. 2. 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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
Hi Dave,
Great!
Could you build a Docker image and publish it for macOS users who are restricted 32 bit VM by Apple also to try it easily?
-- sumim
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
Thank you Trygve,
I confirm also that the image runs very well on my Ubuntu Linux laptop with a VM compiled per http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354.
Dave
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0900, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the included SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM ( https://squeak.js.org/run ).
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse
Engineering
(SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of
Loke/BabyIDE
written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to
make
sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response
said
"*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has
simplified
writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures
consistency
across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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.
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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to
achieve
a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 12:07:47PM +0900, sumi masato wrote:
Hi Dave,
Great!
Could you build a Docker image and publish it for macOS users who are restricted 32 bit VM by Apple also to try it easily?
-- sumim
I have no experience with Docker, but if you or someone else knows how to do that, I'll be happy help if you run into any difficulty compiling the VM.
I do not understand "restricted 32 bit VM by Apple" but to clarify, the Linux VM I use is a 64 bit VM running the 32-bit Squeak image. I expect this is what you would want to use if you were building a Docker image, although you can also compile the VM as a 32 bit application if needed. But I saw no problems running Trygve's image on the 64 bit VM.
Dave
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
Thank you Trygve,
I confirm also that the image runs very well on my Ubuntu Linux laptop with a VM compiled per http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354.
Dave
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0900, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the included SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM ( https://squeak.js.org/run ).
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse
Engineering
(SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of
Loke/BabyIDE
written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to
make
sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response
said
"*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has
simplified
writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures
consistency
across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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.
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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to
achieve
a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
-- sent from mobile
Hi Dave,
Oh, I assumed that there had been no 64-bit version of 3.10 VM and also that 32-bit virtual images could not run on 64-bit VMs.
Or, does it means that by building from source on current Unix-like system, former VM for 32-bit VI can also be generated as 64-bit executables?
Anyway, I'll try to build a 3.10 VM on the latest macOS by following your instruction.
Thank you.
-- sumim
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 12:07:47PM +0900, sumi masato wrote:
Hi Dave,
Great!
Could you build a Docker image and publish it for macOS users who are restricted 32 bit VM by Apple also to try it easily?
-- sumim
I have no experience with Docker, but if you or someone else knows how to do that, I'll be happy help if you run into any difficulty compiling the VM.
I do not understand "restricted 32 bit VM by Apple" but to clarify, the Linux VM I use is a 64 bit VM running the 32-bit Squeak image. I expect this is what you would want to use if you were building a Docker image, although you can also compile the VM as a 32 bit application if needed. But I saw no problems running Trygve's image on the 64 bit VM.
Dave
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
Thank you Trygve,
I confirm also that the image runs very well on my Ubuntu Linux laptop with a VM compiled per http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354.
Dave
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0900, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the
included
SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM
(
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of
DCI
programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse
Engineering
(SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of
Loke/BabyIDE
written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of
researchers
and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to
future
generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will
try to
make
sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One
response
said
"*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has
simplified
writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system
for
managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures
consistency
across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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.
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 "*Personal Programming and the
Object
Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to
achieve
a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
-- sent from mobile
Changing the subject line because this is not related to the original discussion.
In general, a 32-bit image can run on a 64-bit VM (and vice versa). An explanation is at http://squeakvm.org/squeak64/faq.html
The more recent Cog and Spur VMs are more restrictive in the sense that we always use a 64-bit VM when running a 64-bit image, and we use a 32-bit VM when running a 32-bit image. The reason for this is that the modern VMs are optimized to provide code generation ("Cog") and it would be a good deal of effort to make this work on the various combinations image word size and VM pointer size.
For the traditional interpreter VM (http://squeakvm.org/) the restriction is not necessary, and it is usually better to use a native 64-bit VM regardless of the word size of the image being run.
Dave
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:45:17AM +0900, sumi masato wrote:
Hi Dave,
Oh, I assumed that there had been no 64-bit version of 3.10 VM and also that 32-bit virtual images could not run on 64-bit VMs.
Or, does it means that by building from source on current Unix-like system, former VM for 32-bit VI can also be generated as 64-bit executables?
Anyway, I'll try to build a 3.10 VM on the latest macOS by following your instruction.
Thank you.
-- sumim
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 12:07:47PM +0900, sumi masato wrote:
Hi Dave,
Great!
Could you build a Docker image and publish it for macOS users who are restricted 32 bit VM by Apple also to try it easily?
-- sumim
I have no experience with Docker, but if you or someone else knows how to do that, I'll be happy help if you run into any difficulty compiling the VM.
I do not understand "restricted 32 bit VM by Apple" but to clarify, the Linux VM I use is a 64 bit VM running the 32-bit Squeak image. I expect this is what you would want to use if you were building a Docker image, although you can also compile the VM as a 32 bit application if needed. But I saw no problems running Trygve's image on the 64 bit VM.
Dave
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
Thank you Trygve,
I confirm also that the image runs very well on my Ubuntu Linux laptop with a VM compiled per http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354.
Dave
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0900, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the
included
SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM
(
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
Dear Sumim, Thank you for your kind words.
The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of
DCI
programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse
Engineering
(SRE), and more.
Best --Trygve
On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.
I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.
I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of
Loke/BabyIDE
written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of
researchers
and/or followers?
Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to
future
generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will
try to
make
sure that.
Thank you so much and goodbye. Please take care of yourself.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
> Dear all, > 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. > > Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One
response
said
> "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has
simplified
> writing software for all of us.* > > > *We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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. > > From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system
for
> managers in the shipbuilding industry: > > 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 **distributed algorithm** ensures
consistency
> across departments. > > 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." > > 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. > > > ==================== > > 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: > > > 1. > 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.
> 2. > 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 "*Personal Programming and the
Object
> Computer.*" 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. > > Trygve > Personal programming and the object computer > https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3 > > -- > > *The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to > achieve a goal. * > Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ > N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info > Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625 > >
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to
achieve
a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
-- sent from mobile
-- sent from mobile
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
In general, a 32-bit image can run on a 64-bit VM (and vice versa).
I had a misunderstanding about it completely..
-- sumim
2020年10月5日(月) 8:00 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
Changing the subject line because this is not related to the original discussion.
In general, a 32-bit image can run on a 64-bit VM (and vice versa). An explanation is at http://squeakvm.org/squeak64/faq.html
The more recent Cog and Spur VMs are more restrictive in the sense that we always use a 64-bit VM when running a 64-bit image, and we use a 32-bit VM when running a 32-bit image. The reason for this is that the modern VMs are optimized to provide code generation ("Cog") and it would be a good deal of effort to make this work on the various combinations image word size and VM pointer size.
For the traditional interpreter VM (http://squeakvm.org/) the restriction is not necessary, and it is usually better to use a native 64-bit VM regardless of the word size of the image being run.
Dave
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:45:17AM +0900, sumi masato wrote:
Hi Dave,
Oh, I assumed that there had been no 64-bit version of 3.10 VM and also that 32-bit virtual images could not run on 64-bit VMs.
Or, does it means that by building from source on current Unix-like system, former VM for 32-bit VI can also be generated as 64-bit executables?
Anyway, I'll try to build a 3.10 VM on the latest macOS by following your instruction.
Thank you.
-- sumim
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 12:07:47PM +0900, sumi masato wrote:
Hi Dave,
Great!
Could you build a Docker image and publish it for macOS users who are restricted 32 bit VM by Apple also to try it easily?
-- sumim
I have no experience with Docker, but if you or someone else knows how to do that, I'll be happy help if you run into any difficulty compiling the VM.
I do not understand "restricted 32 bit VM by Apple" but to clarify, the Linux VM I use is a 64 bit VM running the 32-bit Squeak image. I expect this is what you would want to use if you were building a Docker image, although you can also compile the VM as a 32 bit application if needed. But I saw no problems running Trygve's image on the 64 bit VM.
Dave
2020-10-04 David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com:
Thank you Trygve,
I confirm also that the image runs very well on my Ubuntu Linux laptop with a VM compiled per http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6354.
Dave
On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0900, masato sumi wrote:
Dear Trygve,
I confirmed that I could launch the Loke/BabyIDE image with the
included
SqueakVM for Windows (8.1 and 10) and I could also launch it in a web browser by using the SqueakJS VM
(
Thank you very much.
-- sumim
2020-10-03 15:48 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no:
> Dear Sumim, > Thank you for your kind words. > > The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at > https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1 > The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of
DCI
> programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse
Engineering
> (SRE), and more. > > Best > --Trygve > > On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote: > > Dear Trygve, > > Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts. > > I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now. > > I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of
Loke/BabyIDE
> written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of
researchers
> and/or followers? > > Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to
future
> generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will
try to
make
> sure that. > > Thank you so much and goodbye. > Please take care of yourself. > > -- > sumim > > 2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no: > >> Dear all, >> 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. >> >> Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One
response
said
>> "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has
simplified
>> writing software for all of us.* >> >> >> *We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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. >> >> From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system
for
>> managers in the shipbuilding industry: >> >> 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 **distributed algorithm** ensures
consistency
>> across departments. >> >> 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." >> >> 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. >> >> >> ==================== >> >> 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: >> >> >> 1. >> 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.
>> 2. >> 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 "*Personal Programming and the
Object
>> Computer.*" 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. >> >> Trygve >> Personal programming and the object computer >> https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3 >> >> -- >> >> *The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to >> achieve a goal. * >> Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
>> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ >> N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info >> Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625 >> >> > > -- > > *The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to
achieve
> a goal. * > Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no <%
20trygver@ifi.uio.no>
> Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ > N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info > Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625 >
-- sent from mobile
-- sent from mobile
I am tired of being alone in my endeavors...
I hope you won't mind one last farewell, Trygve, to assure you that you are *not* alone. The Introduction of your paper, *Personal programming and the object computer*, says: _____________ 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. _____________
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.
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.. :)
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.
Best Wishes, Chris Muller
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 10:53 AM Trygve Reenskaug trygver@ifi.uio.no wrote:
Dear all, 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.
Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said "*But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.*
*We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk." *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.
From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:
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 **distributed algorithm** ensures consistency across departments.
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."
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.
====================
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:
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. 2. 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 "*Personal Programming and the Object Computer.*" 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.
Trygve Personal programming and the object computer https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3
--
*The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate to achieve a goal. * Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver@ifi.uio.no %20trygver@ifi.uio.no Morgedalsvn. 5A http://folk.uio.no/trygver/ N-0378 Oslo http://fullOO.info Norway Tel: (+47) 468 58 625
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Chris Muller -
David T. Lewis -
masato sumi -
sumi masato
-
Trygve Reenskaug -
Yoshiki Ohshima