Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition
Locked
12
12
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
 
|
[sorry to be late in responding. I lost Squeak mail access for four days]
Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote... >Let me thank you for Smalltalk and Squeak. Your works are a source of inspiration to me. I learn from your code. I keep re-reading "Design Principles Behind Smalltalk", and watching your lectures on video. I enjoy reading every message you send to this list. > >I want to program like you. I want to write like you. I want to think like you. > >I first read about Smalltalk in 1984, in one of the very first computer magazines I read. It was like scientifiction. I only found it again ten years later at the university. By then, I had been programming for ten years, and I was completely shocked by Smalltalk. In 1997 I knew about Squeak, and I got my first job in Smalltalk. After that, I never took a job on anything else. Your impact in my life hasn't diminished a bit since then. > >I would really love to meet you at Squeak's birthday. I'm sure lots of us would but can't. I hope I'll be able to meet you and to thank you personally. > >Happy birthday, Squeak! Juan - Your message warms my heart. Your experience is exactly what all of us who worked on Smalltalk and Squeak hoped for, and still hope for. I accept your thanks for my part -- I am honored. Let us not forget, though, that many people made Smalltalk and Squeak what it is. From Alan's first inspiration, through all the good work that made things practical, and all the cool hacks that have made it so much fun, it has been the work of many wonderful people including the good folks on this list (and you, too, Juan) that have made this such a rewarding project. I never meant to "take" the 10th birthday; I just felt like having a party, and Craig mentioned the 10 year coincidence. So happy 10th birthday to all Squeakers out there -- you are just as much a part of the celebration regardless of where you are. - Dan |
|
|
And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of
objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year. Cheers, Alan ---------------- At 10:44 AM 10/2/2006, Dan Ingalls wrote: >[sorry to be late in responding. I lost Squeak mail access for four days] > >Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote... > > >Let me thank you for Smalltalk and Squeak. Your works are a source > of inspiration to me. I learn from your code. I keep re-reading > "Design Principles Behind Smalltalk", and watching your lectures on > video. I enjoy reading every message you send to this list. > > > >I want to program like you. I want to write like you. I want to > think like you. > > > >I first read about Smalltalk in 1984, in one of the very first > computer magazines I read. It was like scientifiction. I only found > it again ten years later at the university. By then, I had been > programming for ten years, and I was completely shocked by > Smalltalk. In 1997 I knew about Squeak, and I got my first job in > Smalltalk. After that, I never took a job on anything else. Your > impact in my life hasn't diminished a bit since then. > > > >I would really love to meet you at Squeak's birthday. I'm sure > lots of us would but can't. I hope I'll be able to meet you and to > thank you personally. > > > >Happy birthday, Squeak! > >Juan - > >Your message warms my heart. Your experience is exactly what all of >us who worked on Smalltalk and Squeak hoped for, and still hope >for. I accept your thanks for my part -- I am honored. Let us not >forget, though, that many people made Smalltalk and Squeak what it >is. From Alan's first inspiration, through all the good work that >made things practical, and all the cool hacks that have made it so >much fun, it has been the work of many wonderful people including >the good folks on this list (and you, too, Juan) that have made this >such a rewarding project. > >I never meant to "take" the 10th birthday; I just felt like having >a party, and Craig mentioned the 10 year coincidence. So happy 10th >birthday to all Squeakers out there -- you are just as much a part >of the celebration regardless of where you are. > > - Dan |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
Alan Kay wrote:
> And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of > objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year. Alan, AFAIK, 1966 you were in graduate school. Are you referring to your ideas of utilizing the ability of self-repairing, recursive biological cells to software objects? (Of which, I still find the origins of that idea fascinating.) -- brad fuller www.bradfuller.com www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184 |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Kay
Of course I acknowledge as you say Dan. Anyway, nobody can deny the
enormous impact on your way to think and design software. There is really no need to say that my thanks are also for you, Alan. Your writings and lectures I enjoy often too! It is just that I was lucky enough and you were kind enough to let me thank you personally when we met in L.A. in 2003. There is something else I didn't say in my previous post. When I learned about Smalltalk in 1995, and read the Purple Book, the story of Smalltalk and Xerox Parc was something like a legend. And you were the heroes of an epic story of a previous time. You were like Prometheus, trying to give people the sacred fire. And suddenly, you were back with Squeak! The story wasn't finished yet, and you were inviting me (all us) to be part of it, and share the fire with you. The feelings I had at that time are within the strongest I've ever had. Thank you for the Fire! Cheers, Juan Vuletich Alan Kay wrote: > And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of > objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year. > > Cheers, > > Alan > > ---------------- > > At 10:44 AM 10/2/2006, Dan Ingalls wrote: >> [sorry to be late in responding. I lost Squeak mail access for four >> days] >> >> Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote... >> >> >Let me thank you for Smalltalk and Squeak. Your works are a source >> of inspiration to me. I learn from your code. I keep re-reading >> "Design Principles Behind Smalltalk", and watching your lectures on >> video. I enjoy reading every message you send to this list. >> > >> >I want to program like you. I want to write like you. I want to >> think like you. >> > >> >I first read about Smalltalk in 1984, in one of the very first >> computer magazines I read. It was like scientifiction. I only found >> it again ten years later at the university. By then, I had been >> programming for ten years, and I was completely shocked by Smalltalk. >> In 1997 I knew about Squeak, and I got my first job in Smalltalk. >> After that, I never took a job on anything else. Your impact in my >> life hasn't diminished a bit since then. >> > >> >I would really love to meet you at Squeak's birthday. I'm sure lots >> of us would but can't. I hope I'll be able to meet you and to thank >> you personally. >> > >> >Happy birthday, Squeak! >> >> Juan - >> >> Your message warms my heart. Your experience is exactly what all of >> us who worked on Smalltalk and Squeak hoped for, and still hope for. >> I accept your thanks for my part -- I am honored. Let us not forget, >> though, that many people made Smalltalk and Squeak what it is. From >> Alan's first inspiration, through all the good work that made things >> practical, and all the cool hacks that have made it so much fun, it >> has been the work of many wonderful people including the good folks >> on this list (and you, too, Juan) that have made this such a >> rewarding project. >> >> I never meant to "take" the 10th birthday; I just felt like having a >> party, and Craig mentioned the 10 year coincidence. So happy 10th >> birthday to all Squeakers out there -- you are just as much a part of >> the celebration regardless of where you are. >> >> - Dan > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brad Fuller
Just for "years ending in zero" purposes (imagine if we had no
thumbs) ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm? Cheers, Alan At 01:53 PM 10/2/2006, Brad Fuller wrote: >Alan Kay wrote: > > And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of > > objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year. >Alan, >AFAIK, 1966 you were in graduate school. Are you referring to your ideas >of utilizing the ability of self-repairing, recursive biological cells >to software objects? (Of which, I still find the origins of that idea >fascinating.) > >-- >brad fuller >www.bradfuller.com >www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184 |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
> thumbs) ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm?
We have a chance to let Object Orientation be the last paradigm, and focus on understanding/teaching the limits of the OO method and promote people to use senses to know the concecuences of the application of the method. Imho, all efforts done on children are good but not enough if adults do not consider the concecuences of application of object orientation (childs grow, but to become adults... adapted to anAdult by instruction). We all have in Smalltalk a support to understand, learn and promote activities where the limits of formal development are exposed and a chance to see more than a language (or formula/design). There has been a huge investment in promoting smalltalk as a medium to take a new path in systems development (and understanding), but imo, from the very first papers (like "The design principles behing Smalltalk") upto today, the use of smalltalk as an open system has not been promoted (social constrains?). Under this consideration, I see that smalltalk has overpassed it designer´s limits, and most of the people using it are not working on the new ways of acting in an open system. Most of the efforts are put on formal and atomicist formulations (I think that it may be related with newcommers of smalltalk community). A new paradigm can be formulated, using or negating objects/messages, but I think that it will be another formula/idea that will promote new ideals e.g. will hide the limits of The Method (again). To not to repeat the same as usual is also an option, but requires to be free (most people expect a new formula to be repeated/promoted). cheers, Ale. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Kay" <[hidden email]> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <[hidden email]>; "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:46 PM Subject: Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!! > Just for "years ending in zero" purposes (imagine if we had no > thumbs) ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm? > > Cheers, > > Alan > > At 01:53 PM 10/2/2006, Brad Fuller wrote: > >Alan Kay wrote: > > > And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of > > > objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year. > >Alan, > >AFAIK, 1966 you were in graduate school. Are you referring to your ideas > >of utilizing the ability of self-repairing, recursive biological cells > >to software objects? (Of which, I still find the origins of that idea > >fascinating.) > > > >-- > >brad fuller > >www.bradfuller.com > >www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184 > > |
re: potential (was "Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!")
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Kay
Alan writes: > Maybe time for a new paradigm? New paradigms are always welcome, there's no need to wait for old ones to languish. At the same time, I don't think an idea is necessarily spent simply because it has reached a certain age, nor that an idea must displace others to achieve success (though that often happens). We have fallen far short of realizing the potential of the objects idea. That doesn't make the idea obsolete, either. So much for what I don't think... What I do think is that a thorough implementation of the idea would be fun, enlightening, and extremely useful, so it's one of the things I pursue. I think this because of what we *have* managed to achieve so far; it's good enough not only to criticize but also for inspiration. Oh, and adults matter too. :) -C -- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Kay
Alan Kay wrote:
> Just for "years ending in zero" purposes (imagine if we had no thumbs) > ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm? I always thought how objects communicated to be interesting. I think of water or air as both a way to touch, communicate and connect with other objects, and at the same time, a carrier of objects to remote destinations. There is just something wonderful about the flow between real-life objects. Water can exist in many forms and it can carry objects to many places - it has a way of getting in the way of humans; and it's hard to control, no matter how hard we try... certainly more redundant than the Internet! Same with air, it can carry sound waves that could be music or noise - of which the quality is listener dependent :-) It can have disastrous effects too - like carrying deadly spores. So, while I think encapsulated objects in software design is productive and fun, I don't think we spend enough time inventing new ways to communicate between objects. Or, at least I don't spend enough time thinking about it. Most likely, I'm naive about it. brad > > At 01:53 PM 10/2/2006, Brad Fuller wrote: >> Alan Kay wrote: >> > And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of >> > objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year. >> Alan, >> AFAIK, 1966 you were in graduate school. Are you referring to your ideas >> of utilizing the ability of self-repairing, recursive biological cells >> to software objects? (Of which, I still find the origins of that idea >> fascinating.) |
|
|
In reply to this post by ccrraaiigg
Hi Craig --
At 11:10 AM 10/3/2006, Craig Latta wrote: > Alan writes: > > > Maybe time for a new paradigm? > > New paradigms are always welcome, there's no need to wait for old >ones to languish. At the same time, I don't think an idea is necessarily >spent simply because it has reached a certain age, nor that an idea must >displace others to achieve success (though that often happens). We have >fallen far short of realizing the potential of the objects idea. That >doesn't make the idea obsolete, either. Oh, I think objects is still a pretty good idea ... > So much for what I don't think... What I do think is that a >thorough implementation of the idea would be fun, enlightening, and >extremely useful, so it's one of the things I pursue. I think this >because of what we *have* managed to achieve so far; it's good enough >not only to criticize but also for inspiration. > > Oh, and adults matter too. :) That's precisely why I worry about helping children learn to think better ... Cheers, Alan >-C > >-- >Craig Latta >http://netjam.org/resume |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
Brad,
======================= I always thought how objects communicated to be interesting. I think of water or air as both a way to touch, communicate and connect with other objects, and at the same time, a carrier of objects to remote destinations. There is just something wonderful about the flow between real-life objects. Water can exist in many forms and it can carry objects to many places - it has a way of getting in the way of humans; and it's hard to control, no matter how hard we try... certainly more redundant than the Internet! Same with air, it can carry sound waves that could be music or noise - of which the quality is listener dependent :-) It can have disastrous effects too - like carrying deadly spores. ======================= Common internet protocols carry malware, and even the occasional Microsoft service pack =:0 ======================= So, while I think encapsulated objects in software design is productive and fun, I don't think we spend enough time inventing new ways to communicate between objects. Or, at least I don't spend enough time thinking about it. Most likely, I'm naive about it. ======================= Far be it from me to call another Smalltalker naive. It might help to think of the way atoms and molecules interact, which (chemically at least) is via electron clouds, and a few other field effects. All of the other stuff is higher level, which one would model using objects and messages vs. extending the VM and details of message sending - at least IMHO. With that said, note the following: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.html which puts you in good company. Bill Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [hidden email] Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029 |
Re: potential (was "Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!")
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Kay
Hi Alan,
I saw this really interesting project in India called: http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/ May be you've already heard about it. There might be some synergy between your efforts and this project? Thank you for making the world a better place. -bakki On 10/3/06, Alan Kay <[hidden email]> wrote: > > That's precisely why I worry about helping children learn to think better ... |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Kay
> > Oh, and adults matter too. :) > > That's precisely why I worry about helping children learn to think > better ... I believe you missed my point, oh ellipsis-wielding one. :) I'm saying we should remain engaged with those children after they have become adults, rather than give all our attention to the children of the moment. In particular, making systems that are usable by adults (including being joyously hackable all the way down) is just as important. Yes, eToys is lovely, but under the hood is a bloody mess, and that's inexcusable. -C -- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
In reply to this post by Alejandro F. Reimondo
On Oct 3, 2006, at 15:32 , Alejandro F. Reimondo wrote:
Well, it really isn't all that open of a system these days, it is very much a closed world onto itself. This state of affairs is absolutely understandable, historically, because at the time it was created, Smalltalk could be the whole world as there wasn't much else out there to connect to. However, the changes in the outside world since 1980 (or '76 or '72) have been dramatic, and that is probably understating it. I don't think "extending" Smalltalk(s) will do the trick, I think "refactoring" is the very least that needs to be done. Marcel |
Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Kay
On Oct 3, 2006, at 3:46 , Alan Kay wrote: > Just for "years ending in zero" purposes (imagine if we had no > thumbs) ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm? Or maybe its time to apply "objects" to the idea of "new paradigm", and start composing, refining, abstracting, refactoring our current "paradigm(s)"? Maybe we need some arches? Marcel |
|
|
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K
Hear, hear!
The essence of object orientation is that objects interact to accomplish some desired functionality. The essential questions are: (1) What are the objects? (2) How are they interlinked? (3) How do they interact? (What happens in the inter-object space?) Powerful abstractions for (1) are the class and the *role*: * The class abstraction defines what an object IS. * The role abstraction defines what an object DOES in a community of interacting objects. (Its responsibility in this context) My *role model* is a possible abstraction for (2). It defines roles and the links between them. A simplified version is called *collaboration* in UML. (Misunderstood in UML 1.x. Much better in UML 2.x. But still missing important concepts.) There are many candidates for (3). Algorithms, interactions, state machines, activities/data flow. I still dream of extending Squeak with languages and metaclasses for objects/roles/collaborations/interactions. In my first attempt, I got lost in the intricacies of low level library code. I hope 3.9 and Spoon will make life easier (for me :-)). More at http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/themes/babyuml/babyuml-index.html Cheers --Trygve At 23:12 03.10.2006, Bill Schwab wrote: Brad, Trygve Reenskaug mailto: [hidden email] Morgedalsvn. 5A http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver N-0378 Oslo Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27 Norway |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |