A Sad Day – concluded

Dear all,
I need to use many words to explore why I can't understand current Squeak code. I believe the reason is a profound one, and I hope some of you have the patience to read about it.

Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said
 "But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.
We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk."

As to MVC, it was received with acclamation when I first presented it at PARC in 1978, and people suggested I should make it the theme of my article in the special Smalltalk issue of Byte. I couldn't understand it; MVC was so simple and obvious that is was not worth writing about it. Nevertheless, people seem to have problems understanding MVC. It took me a long time before I gleaned what was going on. The explanation is a deep one, rooted in our different mental paradigms.

From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:

 Every manager has their own computer that they use for augmenting their mind. The manager understands their software and ideally writes it themselves. Managers delegate conversations with other managers to their computer's M-to-M network. (Marked with a heavy black line in the figure). I chose "distributed planning with central control" as my example project. Each manager creates a plan for their department, using apps suited to their particular needs. A *distributed algorithm* ensures consistency across departments.

I came to PARC in 1978 and could immediately relate to the Smalltalk image with its universe of collaborating objects. Alan's definition of object-orientation fitted my Prokon model: "Thus its semantics are a bit like having thousands and thousands of computers all hooked together by a very fast network."

MVC prescribes a network of communicating objects. Any object can fill one or more positions in the network as long as it has the required behavior; their classes are irrelevant. It's so simple that it's not worth writing about it.

 
====================

The work on this post was interrupted at this point by an unexpected week in hospital. It gave me quiet days of pondering the futility of what I am doing and I will be terminating my memberships in the Pharo and Squeak mailing lists. I have also deleted most of the old draft of this message and will quickly conclude with two observations:

1. 
   The Smalltalk image is a universe of communicating objects. I call it an object computer. It can be seen as the model of an entirely new kind of computer, a model on a level closer to the human mind than the von Neumann model of 1948. The new model is communication-centric and should supersede the ubiquitous CPU-centric model as soon as possible. Working out the details of this idea could make an exciting and disruptive Ph.D. thesis.
2. 
   Smalltalk is called a programming language. It is a curious one, very different from well-known languages like Java with their syntax and semantics. Smalltalk, as a programming language, does not have the concept of a program. Smalltalk, as a class-oriented language, does not have syntax for the declaration of a class. Smalltalk, as an object-oriented language, can't describe how objects collaborate to achieve a goal. You appear to be happy with this state of affairs, at least, I see no sign of anybody wanting to move on from the unfinished Smalltalk language to a mature development environment. I do not find it satisfactory and it is not acceptable to the intended managers populating the distributed system shown in the first picture. Consequently, I have done something about it as described in my SoSym article "Personal Programming and the Object Computer." I am tired of being alone in my endeavors and this ends my work with Squeak and other Smalltalks. I wish you health and happiness wherever you happen to be.
   

Trygve
Personal programming and the object computer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3

--

The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate  to achieve a goal.
Trygve Reenskaug      [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
N-0378 Oslo             http://fullOO.info
Norway                     Tel: (+47) 468 58 625

Dear Sumim,
Thank you for your kind words.

The latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 is at
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/5xxgzv7fsp/1
The image is my program repository. It includes some examples of DCI programming, Ellen's Personal Programming IDE, Squeak Reverse Engineering (SRE), and more.

Best
--Trygve

On 2020-10-02 20:14, masato sumi wrote:

Dear Trygve,

Thank you for your very long term contribution and efforts.

I'm very sorry that I couldn't help you at all now.

I'm afraid, but could you please make your latest version of Loke/BabyIDE written on Squeak3.10.2 available for future generations of researchers and/or followers?

Anyway, I think your ideas and thoughts should be passed on to future generations as faithfully as we can possible, and I myself will try to make sure that.

Thank you so much and goodbye.

Please take care of yourself.

--

sumim

2020-10-03 0:54 Trygve Reenskaug <[hidden email]>:

Dear all,
I need to use many words to explore why I can't understand current Squeak code. I believe the reason is a profound one, and I hope some of you have the patience to read about it.

Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said
 "But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.
We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk."

As to MVC, it was received with acclamation when I first presented it at PARC in 1978, and people suggested I should make it the theme of my article in the special Smalltalk issue of Byte. I couldn't understand it; MVC was so simple and obvious that is was not worth writing about it. Nevertheless, people seem to have problems understanding MVC. It took me a long time before I gleaned what was going on. The explanation is a deep one, rooted in our different mental paradigms.

From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:

 Every manager has their own computer that they use for augmenting their mind. The manager understands their software and ideally writes it themselves. Managers delegate conversations with other managers to their computer's M-to-M network. (Marked with a heavy black line in the figure). I chose "distributed planning with central control" as my example project. Each manager creates a plan for their department, using apps suited to their particular needs. A *distributed algorithm* ensures consistency across departments.

I came to PARC in 1978 and could immediately relate to the Smalltalk image with its universe of collaborating objects. Alan's definition of object-orientation fitted my Prokon model: "Thus its semantics are a bit like having thousands and thousands of computers all hooked together by a very fast network."

MVC prescribes a network of communicating objects. Any object can fill one or more positions in the network as long as it has the required behavior; their classes are irrelevant. It's so simple that it's not worth writing about it.

 
====================

The work on this post was interrupted at this point by an unexpected week in hospital. It gave me quiet days of pondering the futility of what I am doing and I will be terminating my memberships in the Pharo and Squeak mailing lists. I have also deleted most of the old draft of this message and will quickly conclude with two observations:

1. 
   The Smalltalk image is a universe of communicating objects. I call it an object computer. It can be seen as the model of an entirely new kind of computer, a model on a level closer to the human mind than the von Neumann model of 1948. The new model is communication-centric and should supersede the ubiquitous CPU-centric model as soon as possible. Working out the details of this idea could make an exciting and disruptive Ph.D. thesis.
2. 
   Smalltalk is called a programming language. It is a curious one, very different from well-known languages like Java with their syntax and semantics. Smalltalk, as a programming language, does not have the concept of a program. Smalltalk, as a class-oriented language, does not have syntax for the declaration of a class. Smalltalk, as an object-oriented language, can't describe how objects collaborate to achieve a goal. You appear to be happy with this state of affairs, at least, I see no sign of anybody wanting to move on from the unfinished Smalltalk language to a mature development environment. I do not find it satisfactory and it is not acceptable to the intended managers populating the distributed system shown in the first picture. Consequently, I have done something about it as described in my SoSym article "Personal Programming and the Object Computer." I am tired of being alone in my endeavors and this ends my work with Squeak and other Smalltalks. I wish you health and happiness wherever you happen to be.
   

Trygve
Personal programming and the object computer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3

--

The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate  to achieve a goal.
Trygve Reenskaug      [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
N-0378 Oslo             http://fullOO.info
Norway                     Tel: (+47) 468 58 625

--

The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate  to achieve a goal.
Trygve Reenskaug      [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
N-0378 Oslo             http://fullOO.info
Norway                     Tel: (+47) 468 58 625

Dear all,
I need to use many words to explore why I can't understand current Squeak code. I believe the reason is a profound one, and I hope some of you have the patience to read about it.

Thank you for your responses to my 'A Sad Day'-message. One response said
 "But please don't give up as an inventor of MVC, which has simplified writing software for all of us.
We need new ideas to stabilize Smalltalk."

As to MVC, it was received with acclamation when I first presented it at PARC in 1978, and people suggested I should make it the theme of my article in the special Smalltalk issue of Byte. I couldn't understand it; MVC was so simple and obvious that is was not worth writing about it. Nevertheless, people seem to have problems understanding MVC. It took me a long time before I gleaned what was going on. The explanation is a deep one, rooted in our different mental paradigms.

From around 1970, I was working on Prokon, a distributed system for managers in the shipbuilding industry:

 Every manager has their own computer that they use for augmenting their mind. The manager understands their software and ideally writes it themselves. Managers delegate conversations with other managers to their computer's M-to-M network. (Marked with a heavy black line in the figure). I chose "distributed planning with central control" as my example project. Each manager creates a plan for their department, using apps suited to their particular needs. A *distributed algorithm* ensures consistency across departments.

I came to PARC in 1978 and could immediately relate to the Smalltalk image with its universe of collaborating objects. Alan's definition of object-orientation fitted my Prokon model: "Thus its semantics are a bit like having thousands and thousands of computers all hooked together by a very fast network."

MVC prescribes a network of communicating objects. Any object can fill one or more positions in the network as long as it has the required behavior; their classes are irrelevant. It's so simple that it's not worth writing about it.

 
====================

The work on this post was interrupted at this point by an unexpected week in hospital. It gave me quiet days of pondering the futility of what I am doing and I will be terminating my memberships in the Pharo and Squeak mailing lists. I have also deleted most of the old draft of this message and will quickly conclude with two observations:

1. 
   The Smalltalk image is a universe of communicating objects. I call it an object computer. It can be seen as the model of an entirely new kind of computer, a model on a level closer to the human mind than the von Neumann model of 1948. The new model is communication-centric and should supersede the ubiquitous CPU-centric model as soon as possible. Working out the details of this idea could make an exciting and disruptive Ph.D. thesis.
2. 
   Smalltalk is called a programming language. It is a curious one, very different from well-known languages like Java with their syntax and semantics. Smalltalk, as a programming language, does not have the concept of a program. Smalltalk, as a class-oriented language, does not have syntax for the declaration of a class. Smalltalk, as an object-oriented language, can't describe how objects collaborate to achieve a goal. You appear to be happy with this state of affairs, at least, I see no sign of anybody wanting to move on from the unfinished Smalltalk language to a mature development environment. I do not find it satisfactory and it is not acceptable to the intended managers populating the distributed system shown in the first picture. Consequently, I have done something about it as described in my SoSym article "Personal Programming and the Object Computer." I am tired of being alone in my endeavors and this ends my work with Squeak and other Smalltalks. I wish you health and happiness wherever you happen to be.
   

Trygve
Personal programming and the object computer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-019-00768-3

--

The essence of object orientation is that objects collaborate  to achieve a goal.
Trygve Reenskaug      [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver/
N-0378 Oslo             http://fullOO.info
Norway                     Tel: (+47) 468 58 625