Am 08.02.2005 um 18:24 schrieb Juan Vuletich:

> I've been reading all I could find about Tweak and found out that the 
> key idea
> is to get more eToys-like functionality inside the language.

That is largely correct, although I'd say "environment" rather than 
"language" - one system to support everyone from the child to the 
programming guru. Etoys explored one extreme of the spectrum, it was a 
very restricted environment, aimed only at children, whereas Tweak is 
meant to support a wide range of users.

>  Sort of abandoning Smalltalk.

Well, Smalltalk was always meant to be the tool to build its own 
successor. That's what happened at XEROX PARC in a roughly 2-year 
cycle. This development stagnated pretty much after Smalltalk-80 (with 
some exceptions like Self etc).

>  I prefer Smalltalk / Morphic. Why? I'm a developer, not an end
> user. So, I want tools meant for developers. I don't think the same 
> tools are
> the best for everybody.

Not necessarily the same tools, but the same environment. That's why 
Smalltalk is powerful (nice argument here 
http://www.darrenhobbs.com/archives/000620.html)

>  I just find the originial ideas behind Smalltalk and
> Morphic to be 'right'.

What "original idea behind Smalltalk" do you have in mind, 
specifically? As far as I know, Smalltalk, and everything Alan Kay 
pursued since, is specifically aimed at end-users. To illustrate this 
in context of Squeak, I'll attach an old email of Alan's, sent to this 
list 6 years ago:


	Von: 	  Alan Kay
	Betreff: 	Re: Configuring a Dynabook (was: Off topic)
	Datum: 	11. Dezember 1998 17:51:02 MEZ
	An: 	squeak at cs.uiuc.edu

At 5:09 PM -0000 12/11/98, Jonathan A. Smith wrote:
> What would it take to configure a Dynabook today, and how would it 
> differ
> from the current Squeak environment?
>
----------
Jonathon --

Well, I claim that I haven't escalated the idea since its real 
incubation
in the early days of PARC (heh heh -- others might disagree ...). But 
just
having the right looking and acting HW doesn't come close, because the
Dynabook was always a "user relationship" idea.

      One of the titles of an early paper was "A Dynamic Medium for 
Creative
Thought", and the main analogy was always to art and literature 
(especially
of the scientific type). In another early paper, I called the computer a
"metamedium" since its content was dynamic descriptions of media. The 
most
important new powerful idea that the computer brought to art and 
literature
(and civilization) was the ability to dynamically simulate descriptions 
of
ideas as opposed to just stating them. This could be the basis for
completely new set of end-user and human to human relationships with
"powerful ideas" that would be as world changing as the analogous new
properties brought by the printing press and the eventual incredible
changes in world view and how we describe and argue about ideas.

So, we'll know if we have the first Dynabook if we can make the end-user
experience one of "reading and writing" about "powerful ideas" in a 
dynamic
form, and to do this in such a way that large percentages of the 
bell-curve
can learn how to do this. When Martin Luther was in jail and 
contemplating
how to get the Bible directly to the "end-users" he first thought about
what it would take to teach Latin to most Germans. Then he thought about
the problems of translating the Bible to German. Both were difficult
prospects: the latter because Germany was a collection of provinces with
regional dialects, and the dialects were mostly set up for village
transactions and court intrigues. Interestingly, Luther chose to "fix 
up"
German by restructuring it to be able to handle philosophical and 
religious
discourse. He reasoned that it would be easier to start with something 
that
was somewhat familiar to Germans who could then be elevated, as opposed 
to
starting with the very different and unfamiliar form of Latin. (Not the
least consideration here is that Latin was seen as the language of 
those in
power and with education, and would partly seem unattainable to many 
e.g.
farmers, etc.)

I think Martin Luther was one of the earliest great User Interface
designers -- because he understood that you have to do much more than
provide function to get large numbers of people to get fluent. You 
should
always try to start with where the end-users are and then help them grow
and change.

So, the Dynabook problem is not just how to get the computer to simulate
media -- especially those that only the computer can do -- but to have 
the
"literature" of how this is specified *seem to be learnable* (and then, 
in
fact, be learnable).

(There are many deep considerations about the forms that will really do 
the
job that are beyond the scope of this reply -- and I don't have time to 
get
into all the issues right now -- but the critical part is that symbolic
descriptions are required to synergize with those that can be dealt 
with by
hand and eye. One way to appreciate this is to think about the 
difficulty
of doing Tom Paine's argument against monarchy and for democracy by 
using
stained glass windows! It is hard for many people to understand that it 
is
the very difficulty of symbolic ways of rendering and knowing -- and the
surmounting of these difficulties -- that makes the difference between
traditional societies and the society that we live in. i.e. we aren't an
oral society with a writing system tacked on, but we think qualitatively
differently about the world -- this is what McLuhan meant by "the 
medium is
the message": our representation and idea systems are not linear to 
ideas,
but changes allow previously unthinkable things to now be thinkable.)

Another of the many Dynabook goals has to do with another analogy to
language: that children learning English are also learning the language 
of
Shakespeare and Bertrand Russell. The difference is in years of 
experience
about the world and its ideas, and in the architectural structuring of
English to handle powerful ideas as well as mundane ones. If e.g. Squeak
can show a continuity from authoring environments that 5 year-olds can 
use
up to those that Dan Ingalls wants to use without changing language (but
perhaps with different scopes and safeguards), then part of the Dynabook
vision will have been realized. (i.e. Adults are pretty hopeless, and 
real
changes come when children are introduced to new paradigms early in 
life.)
Another "i.e." is that things work best when they can be used for both
mundane and serious purposes (imagine only being able to use language 
when
you had something important you wanted to talk about -- JIT doesn't work
for ideas!)

And, there also has to be a literature, not just a language. Over the 
next
several years, we have to get at least 1000 dynamic examples of "21st
century content" on the net. (BTW, these don't have to be in Squeak to 
be
useful, but one of the reasons we built Squeak was so that *we* at least
could control our own SW destiny to realize all these Dynabook goals.) 
In
calendar '99 we will be asking people interested in creating the 
Dynabook
to help make this content (and a lot of these people are currently on 
the
Squeak mailing list...)

This is why our project has been going on for many years. At the recent
30th anniversary celebration of Engelbart's great demo of hyperlinking
++++, the writer Denise Caruso (who only recently found out about what 
Doug
Engelbart was trying to do and did do) said that the thing that 
surprised
her about the last 15 years was just how little most people were 
willing to
settle for compared to what Engelbart and others saw could be done. I 
think
a similar remark could be applied to our project. We aren't willing to
settle for less than what can really be done, and it has just taken 
quite a
while to amass all the ideas and tools that are needed.

I think you can see from the above that "Squeak in a Notebook" doesn't
equal a Dynabook -- but the thing that really excites me from head to 
toe
is that Squeak is now comprehensive enough to *make* the original
conception of the Dynabook over the next few years. Then we can just 
stuff
that in the most reasonable HW of that time (or indeed just make the HW
that is required).

Cheers to all,

Alan