[OT]Three Threads Of Squeak

Jim Benson jb at speed.net
Wed Nov 7 00:16:52 UTC 2001


Re: Three Threads Of Squeakyes
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Justin Walsh 
  To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak


  Can somebody please tell me why this thread has been effectively been garbaged.
  Anybody wishing to read previous contributions will find it pretty well impossible to read them owing to the fact that they gradually diminish to one word per line.
  If it is to save space then how?
  Or is it merely to maliciously guide people away from the  "Three Thread Of Squeak " topic,
  by using, as bait a prominant name.
  I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation, perhaps the yahooligans are back in town or maybe I'm just paranoid or technically ignorant.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Alan Kay 
    To: 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: 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/20011106/ae0d97d9/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list