> On 15.08.2020, at 09:56, Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> 
> Just an idea while a car is waiting to take me on a vacation.

Happy vacation!
-t

> 
> Imagine:
> 	• You have a computer with many independently running images.
> 	• A super fast facility pass messages between the images,
> 	• Selected services in the release image are move out and deployed as server objects in another image.
> 	• Every image appears as a server offering RESTful interfaces to other images.
> 	• Selected packages in any repository can be downloaded, compiled, instantiated, and deployed in an image as server objects.
> 	• The different images can even run in different computers and use different VMs.
> 	• There are now two dimensions to the reuse of functionality: a) download and compile a package. b In some image, install a package and deploy it as a server object.
> 	• And presto: The original image is now small and manageable while the whole system can grow without increasing the complexity of the release image.
> In haste. This is just an idea. It's full of holes and need a lot of work done to it before it can be usable.. It's a disruptive idea, so please give it some consideration This is before you shoot it down
> --Trygve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2020-08-14 22:54, karl ramberg wrote:
>> Well said, Vanessa :-)
>> 
>> The complexity comes from people using Squeak and wanting to improve it in many directions.
>> And managing code , graphics , user interface , faster virtual machine, networking, security etc. are hard problems which add complexity. 
>> And also the added accidental complexity on top of that.
>> 
>> It seems systems only are simple and elegant until people start using them.
>> One can see that as a good or bad thing.
>> 
>> Solution to the complexity problem will probably take a few generations to solve...
>> 
>> Best,
>> Karl
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 9:42 PM Vanessa Freudenberg <vanessa at codefrau.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:31 AM Marcel Taeumel <marcel.taeumel at hpi.de> wrote:
>> Hi Trygve,
>> 
>> I apologize for any misunderstandings here. I am not an English native speaker. It was not my intent do accuse you of lying.
>> 
>> However, there is a difference between a bug report and an unsubstantiated rant. I did read your entire post "A Sad Day" as the latter. Whose mistake that was, I cannot tell now. Neutral, objective bug reports would read different, I suppose.
>> 
>> It was neither a bug report nor an unsubstantiated rant. It was a criticism of the complexity of all current Smalltalks. The few examples of unexpected complexity in Squeak that Trygve chose to mention are not the actual issue. No need to feel personally attacked.
>> 
>> Having worked with a beautifully tiny system like Smalltalk-78, or even early versions of Squeak, the complexity in modern Squeak is staggering. 
>> 
>> Smalltalk used to be a system that can be fully understood by a single person - truly a personal computing system. That is no longer the case.
>> 
>> All the functionality we added over the years comes at the price of complexity (not to mention speed). It makes the system hard to understand. It makes it hard to see the design principles. We have not found a way to eliminate, or at least hide, any of the complexity we introduced.
>> 
>> I don't think there is a "solution" for this within the current system. We have accepted the complexity, and now we have to live with it. And we have to accept that that alienates people who are looking for simplicity and elegance.
>> 
>> I am sad to see Trygve leave, but I do understand. He didn't even owe us an explanation. Thank you, Trygve!
>> 
>> All the best,
>> Vanessa