Are Objects really hard?
Locked
 
|
"...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a programming language originally designed to scale from children to adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands to this day how to do them right...." I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. After the fact, after they had designed something they were meant to design, they intended to weld it to they most noble cause they could find. I think it's historically inaccurate to say Smalltalk was designed for children. I think like a lot of things, like Croquet, people follow their muse and create something beautiful. Then they try to find a purpose for it. So Smalltalk is not a failure because it was designed for children. Because it wasn't designed for children. And if you look a the intent of helping children with computers, the OLPC looks like a success to me. This fellow doesn't seem to distinguish between Smalltalk and OOP. OOP is a success. It's everywhere. Lots of people do it, so how hard can it be? I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex. The funniest part of his saying Smalltalk failed (qualified with a "fundamentally" of course. Another loose, imprecise use of the English language IMHO) is that seven years ago, when I bought Squeak: Learn Programming With Robots, this fellow had never heard of the Smalltalk. Now he's blogging about. Say what you will, our balloon rises to greater visibility with every passing year. Chris |
Re: Are Objects really hard?
|
|
> I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to
> invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular > and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close > to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex. Well put. I can relate to this feeling.. Stef |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
Are you so sure the ideas behind Smalltalk were not primarily that of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning ? Nicolas 2012/2/11 Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]>: > "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a > programming language originally designed to scale from children to > adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands > to this day how to do them right...." > > > I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. After the fact, after > they had > designed something they were meant to design, they intended to weld it to > they most noble cause they could find. I think it's historically inaccurate > to say > Smalltalk was designed for children. I think like a lot of things, like > Croquet, > people follow their muse and create something beautiful. Then they try to > find a purpose for it. > > So Smalltalk is not a failure because it was designed for children. Because > it wasn't designed for children. And if you look a the intent of helping > children with computers, the OLPC looks like a success to me. > > This fellow doesn't seem to distinguish between Smalltalk and OOP. OOP > is a success. It's everywhere. Lots of people do it, so how hard can it be? > > I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to > invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular > and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close > to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex. > > The funniest part of his saying Smalltalk failed (qualified with a > "fundamentally" > of course. Another loose, imprecise use of the English language IMHO) is > that seven > years ago, when I bought Squeak: Learn Programming With Robots, this fellow > had > never heard of the Smalltalk. Now he's blogging about. Say what you will, > our balloon > rises to greater visibility with every passing year. > > Chris > > > > > > |
Re: Are Objects really hard?
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
Chris Cunnington wrote:
> I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. If by "Smalltalk" you mean (as nearly everyone does) "Smalltalk-80" then it certainly wasn't. But the unimplemented Smalltalk-71 and the first Smalltalk-72 were explicitly designed for children, and most of the first users were children. The very name "Smalltalk", replacing "Slogo - Simulation Logo", was invented with children in mind. Smalltalk-76 and -80, on the other hand, were meant for adult programmers and very few children have ever tried them. The children did get Etoys and Scratch as layers on top of Squeak, though. And I have never seen anyone have the slightest problems with objects in Etoys. -- Jecel |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Cellier
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Nicolas Cellier
<[hidden email]> wrote: > Are you so sure the ideas behind Smalltalk were not primarily that of > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning ? > > Nicolas > > 2012/2/11 Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]>: >> "...Yet I think Smalltalk still fundamentally failed (remember this is a >> programming language originally designed to scale from children to >> adults) because *Objects are really hard* and no-one really understands >> to this day how to do them right...." >> >> >> I don't think Smalltalk was designed for children. After the fact, after >> they had >> designed something they were meant to design, they intended to weld it to >> they most noble cause they could find. I think it's historically inaccurate >> to say >> Smalltalk was designed for children. I think like a lot of things, like >> Croquet, >> people follow their muse and create something beautiful. Then they try to >> find a purpose for it. >> >> So Smalltalk is not a failure because it was designed for children. Because >> it wasn't designed for children. And if you look a the intent of helping >> children with computers, the OLPC looks like a success to me. >> >> This fellow doesn't seem to distinguish between Smalltalk and OOP. OOP >> is a success. It's everywhere. Lots of people do it, so how hard can it be? >> >> I always feel people who try to talk this way about Smalltalk are trying to >> invalidate the fun I'm having with the language, because it's not popular >> and it's not making people rich. As far as I'm concerned, this guy's close >> to telling me how I'm supposed to be having sex. >> >> The funniest part of his saying Smalltalk failed (qualified with a >> "fundamentally" >> of course. Another loose, imprecise use of the English language IMHO) is >> that seven >> years ago, when I bought Squeak: Learn Programming With Robots, this fellow >> had >> never heard of the Smalltalk. Now he's blogging about. Say what you will, >> our balloon >> rises to greater visibility with every passing year. >> >> Chris I know there were a lot of comments on this thread, and I have no intention of addressing them all. I do have two things to say. 1. Anyone who writes with such emotionally charged, opinionated language about JavaScript is unlikely to write anything of interest to me. Reminds me of ESPN commentators, who manage to make a bad call sound like a cause for WWIII, a shallow ploy designed to attract attention to themselves. 2. The debate over Smalltalk and children is pointless. History shows clearly that Kay was devoted to bringing automation tools to education, not as subject of study (see: computer lab) but as a tool that takes the place of textbooks and libraries, and that he envisioned Smalltalk as the environment students would use on the Dynabook. Even if he concieved of the language on a bet, he was already thinking in the context of education, and when he saw what he made he realized that it fit well into his vision. Later, when the Smalltalk developers realized that the current implementation missed the mark, they pushed the design into a new OOP model, which brought us Squeak, morphic, and Etoys. One more quickie. I offer that Smalltalk, as in Squeak, has not been a smashing success due to the formidable challenge of changing the course of the education system. I can think of few things more entrenched and fearful of change. Papert ran smack into this, as he describes in his book "The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer." -- Gary Dunn Honolulu |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |