On Fri, 23 May 2003 03:13:04 -0400 (EDT), diegogomezdeck wrote
> 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.
> 

may be.

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

i think you have just read them. my ideas are based on concrete, particular 
problems which i encountered.

> 
> > > > 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?
> 

it takes a long time to implement them, but i am trying to do so...

> [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