Hi jz,

[snip]
> > > the point of the question is that
> > > instead of working  with objects, i work mostly with text. the
> > > objects are in fact only in my  head, as a consequence of reading
> > > sources of objects which are in the  browser. but the objects are
> > > not tangible, i cannot see them. for example,  let's take an
> > > instance of an
> > > OrderedCollection: this object is in fact not an  object but a
> > > textual representation of it, I cannot see the collection on my
> > > workspace and must simulate all its behavior on my own and imagine
> > > it in my  head.
> >
> > Don't care of the type of representation for squeak's objects, you
> > always will have a DIFFERENTE set of objects in your mind.
>
> yes, but the question is whether i will have to bother my mind with all
> those numerous objects which could have been on the workspace in from
> of me. i  think you agree that the capabilities of human brain are
> constrained, so  the "real-time" representation of the problem i am
> currently working on IS  significant.

I agree with you in "the capabilities of human brain are constrained", but
I think you'll agree with me on the fact that the current-state-of-art-
computers are far away to be more powerful.

I really beleive we need another user-interaction paradigm shift (instead
of just talking about the colors in squeak'2 windows).  Croquet is a
promise in this direction.  There other thing to try voice-recognition, etc.

Problaby you and me will not see the next paradigm shift (we are just stuck
so much on ST/80 and we have problem to take off our balloon) but we have
to work in this direction.

I'd like to hear YOUR ideas in these area.

> > > another problem is that when i am writing the source code of an
> > > object, i do  not work with objects again. i only manipulate text
> > > and imagine those  objects, but the objects are not on my workspace.
> > > i think that object  oriented programming should look like working
> > > with objects and not with text.
> >
> > Today's answer: It's because you work in browsers instead of working
> > with inspectors and debugers.
> >
> > Tomorrow's answer: We need MORE level of objects representation in
> > Squeal. eToys are one example of a possible path to walk.  Croquet is
> > another.
> >
>
> correct me if i am wrong, but the source code i write (and accept by
> alt-S)  in an inspector or a debugger has the properties i criticize.
> an secondly, is  there a way of how to transfer a reference to my newly
> created list of  numbers (decsribed below and previously) to an
> inspected object - the problem  is that i cannot touch my list so hi
> can i simply transfer it there?

This particular view is text-based but there are other options to try.

Example:
- Let's represent messages with buttons (buttons as action firers is a well
know metaphor).
- Drag the button above one object.
- Click on the button to send the message.

Smalltalk is a place where YOU (and me) can play with these ideas.  I found
your emails really interesting in a way (I also have the feeling that the
current state of ST is primitive), but I feel you're trying to say: "ST is
so primitive, can somebody improve it?".

Again: Why you don't try to explain your ideas? Or better, to implement
them so everybody can "buy" your point of view?

[snip]
> > Simple example: Put your OrderedCollection in a Global variable and
> > you will able to use it from everywhere.
> >
>
> that's the problem, the numeric list will be accesible EVERYWHERE and
> not  only where it is needed - i think that's inaccaptable.

As I told you, this was a SIMPLE example.  I don't need to explain that we
have *today* other options.

And the most important: We have a place (Squeak) to play with new ideas.

> > > so, are we working with objects or just manipulating text ?
> >
> > Depends where you work.  If you manipulate objects from an inspector
> > the feeling is completly diffent.
> >
>
> when i worked with an inspector, i did not have that feeling.

Wich type of representation are you expecting?

> > > giving objects names and them using those names is just one way of
> > > how to  interconnect those objects. i want to work with objects not
> > > with their names,  so why should i give names to objects anyway.
> >
> > To work with anObject you have to identify it from the rest of the
> > univers.  If you want to avoid the work to identify it every time  you
> > want to impact on it, you can "remember" this object with a name.
> >
>
> but i do not want to give it a name, i just want to use it.
>
> there are numerous cases when it's better not to give an object a name
> (e.g.  not all categories which we people recognize have names, some do
> not have  names and names are not needed. when you are shaking you do
> not have to  explicitly name your state by saying "i am shaking"
> because everyone around  knows that you are shaking).

I agree with your problem description. What I can't see is how do you want
to solve this problem.


Cheers,

Diego