Esta pasando

> Date: Thurs 18 May 2006 16:30
> From: "Gustavo Ibarra"
>
> Que suerte que tenemos en ser contemporaneos  a los grandes
> fenomenos/cambios/avances que estan ocurriendo en la tecnologia de la
> informacion.
>
> Para los que no estan en la lista de squek-dev (supongo que pocos),
> copio una de las ultimas respuesta de Alan Kay. Este es el Subject:
> Re: YASoB (was Re: some news)
>
> Es como leer, en vida, al inventor de la rabia y la leche (Don
> Pasteur) mientras te comenta los por que de las cosas....
>
>>     I have a feeling that to many Smalltakers, in general, there have been
>>     no advances in software engineering and computer language design
>>     since Smalltalk was invented.
>>
>>     When was Smalltalk really invented?
>
> The idea of objects as message sending computers came to me in Nov 66. I
> did several OOP languages between then and 1970.
>
>
>>     Was it in 1972 or 1976 or 1980?
>
> My original plan for Smalltalk was to make a Logo-like language that
> combined objects with Carl Hewitt's PLANNER (a pattern directed language
> that anticipated most abilities of Prolog by many years) and Ned Irons IMP
> (another pattern directed language but aimed at extension by end-users).
> This design is now called Smalltalk-71.
>
> I was working on this when the hallway "bet" with Dan Ingalls and Ted
> Kaehler happened in Sept 1972. I worked for several weeks to write a less
> than one page McCarthy-like eval for an OOP language that could parse its
> own messages. Dan implemented this in Oct 1972, and all of a sudden we had
> a working system, which was put right on the Alto when it started working a
> few months later.
>
>
>>     Did Squeak Central insist on creating things that are worse than
>>     Smalltalk-72 and the crowd assumed that it is automatically better
>>     than something "old" like Smalltalk-72?
>
> Not really. Smalltalk-76 in many ways was the best compromise between the
> need for speed and a number of the good features of Smalltalk-72. The
> process after Smalltalk-72 was very conditioned by adult programmers making
> a system for more for themselves than having children be able to use it as
> a top priority.
>
>
>>     For that matter, did the commercial Smalltalk vendors insist
>>     likewise?
>
> The big problem is that most programmers have a very hard time thinking
> about facilitating programming for people who are not like them, and they
> also have a very hard time understanding media.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan