> > > what is so mysterious ;-) in a image that can't be captured in an
 > > > imperative environment?
 > >
 > > Nothing. (And I think you meant "declarative".)
 > >
 > > We're haggling over a matter of motivation at this point
 >
 > I can understand why someone may not wish to go so far into the past
 > that they cross the point of singularity (when the first image came
 > into existence).

      I was referring to the level of sophistication of the tools used, 
not of the subject object memory. Neither constrains the other.

 > But the knowledge about how to create the primordial soup should not
 > be lost into oblivion. SystemTracer can be a source but should not be
 > the only source.

      It isn't. I've done all my Spoon work so far without it, for example.

 > ...if the primal image is so complex that it requires jiggery pokery
 > perhaps it is time to apply Occam's razor to it.

      Check out [1], with its explanation of each object. The smallest 
object memory itself is quite simple, even if the process by which it 
was composed is not (yet). Of course, that object memory is not useful 
in itself, only as a demonstration of the process.

      I happen to be interested in creating object memories which are 
self-sustaining (growable), rather than one-off object memories suitable 
only for specific predetermined tasks. So the real question for me is: 
for an object memory which is self-sustaining after creation, where is 
the optimal compromise between "primal" (small) and useful? I don't 
think anyone has ever answered that question before, not at PARC and not 
since.

 > BTW, I meant imperative *environments* (OS platforms like Linux, Unix 
 > or Windows). The image itself can be declarative.

      That made no sense to me; I don't think it really matters, so I 
think we should drop it.


-C

[1] http://netjam.org/spoon/smallest

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]