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.

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).

Regards,
Gary

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Justin Walsh 
  To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
  Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 1:15 AM
  Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


  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

  Concept      Hierarch  level 1  or Think
  Logical        Hierarch  level 2  or Think/Do
  Physical      Hierarch  level 3  or Do

  and

  Play            peer to peer    This I consider the realm of the "Autonomous" Object or Virus.

  I have cut from another public email, to myself,  a reply which, I think, expects me to decide which thread it belongs to. 
  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.
  The attached pdf demonstrates at least one others point of view.  

  Justin,

  In this OS as Squeak Schema you describe, how do you answer this question?

  If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
  waffles does it take to cover a dog house?

  Jim
  Is it technically feasible for say, a list like this one, on command, to be sorted on the above  4 (?)
  threads?
  Currently on Open Outlook I only have:    From, Subject and Receive.




  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Justin Walsh 
    To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
    Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:05 PM
    Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


    Missing attachment
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Justin Walsh 
      To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
      Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:04 PM
      Subject: Three Threads Of Squeak


      Building professional software is like building a, building:

      Three stages:

      Concept        requires   Designer  ~ ideas
      Logistic         requires   Architect  ~ concepts
      Construct      requires   Builder     ~ objects

      One tool, three threads. Designers don't lay bricks and Brickies don't design buildings.

      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.

      It is not productive to confuse these different threads. It leads to insult and counter insult.

      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.

      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".

      Sandwiched in between are the Logicians who use yet another set of tools to ensure that Designs correspond with Objects (of design).

      We don't have to like, understand, accept, .., each other. Just respect each other.
      Each has a different vision for Smalltalk that is all.

      Attached is one person view on the matter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20011105/2f7bff7f/attachment.htm