P.S. Here is a URL of the draft history chapter for HOPL II (in '93) 
for those who are curious.

http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/proceedings/plan/154766/p69-kay/

Also, Dan Ingalls wrote two really good papers about his designs for 
Smalltalk. One was in POPL 78, (I think some folks have the URLs for 
these) and the other was in Byte 81.

Cheers,

Alan

------

At 8:41 AM -0800 11/5/01, Russ Van Rooy wrote:
>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 The Story of 
>Squeak, A Practical Smalltalk Written in Itself " which was authored 
>by 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* 
>"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:
><ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html>ftp://st.cs.uiuc.edu/Smalltalk/Squeak/docs/OOPSLA.Squeak.html .
>- Russ Van Rooy
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
>
>For the sake of accuracy would someone, who has seen that article, 
>please point me to it.
>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.
>regards
>Justin
>   
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:Alan.Kay at squeakland.org>Alan Kay
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
>
>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).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Alan
>
>-------
>
>At 12:43 AM +0000 11/5/01, Gary McGovern wrote:
>
>>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: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>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: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>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: <mailto:jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>Justin Walsh
>
>To: 
><mailto:squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>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/20011105/915babc3/attachment.htm