"COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!" - Theodor Nelson
My StuffLoveRespectAdmiration
My AmpsLinksArchives
|
Monday, November 17, 2003
Gleamed From The Squeak List
Alan Kay made the following post on the Squeak List and it points to a lot of stuff that I need to look at. The amount of history in this man's head is amazing. Anyway, I thought I'd share:
> Hint: as I mentioned previously, you don't need a > method dictionary, > classes, inheritance, etc. You don't even need > "state" in the way it > is usually thought of. The essence is that of > communicating computers > as looked at from the outside. If you can make the > insides look like > the outsides "all the way down" then you have > something very > interesting and powerful. > > And yes, the original theory of Smalltalk was just > this (since even > the syntaxes used are definable by interior actions > of how the > "computers" recognize and receive messages). The > interesting and > difficult parts here are design decisions about > architectural > conventions that allow the universal mechanisms to > be used with > minimal pain and maximum expression and scalability > by humans. > > Each of the 4 Smalltalks in the 70s made different > choices (plus the > PIE system of Goldstein & Bobrow), and it's a pity > that there have > been so few experiments since Smalltalk-80 came out > of PARC. > > But check out some of Mark Lentzner's stuff: > Codeworks, Wheat, etc. > Look at Joe Goguen's ideas about closer analogies to > algebras as the > interface, etc. Ken Kahn's various designs over the > years are > extremely interesting. Several of the designs I did > after leaving > PARC -- Rainbow, and the original Playground (quite > different from > each other and I'm not sure where either set of > papers is anymore) -- > still seem to be interesting to me. David Reed's > NAMOS is the basis > of Croquet. And, of course, Andreas Raab's not too > far away Tweak > design is a *really interesting* set of ideas.... > > However, there have been many interesting ideas over > the years that > have had little effect because they lacked enough > pragmatic reality > via great implementations (and certainly vice versa: > an incredible > number of systems used today have weak ideas but > were implemented > well enough to spread). > > Cheers, > > Alan > |
Comments