Gary,
Regarding the Space Shuttle, there's more to it than you may know... hidden constrains from the prosaic. See below. The shuttles lavatory is a feat of engineering too, why bother with that?
Regarding hydroplanes, Ive been on hydroplane ferries that have luggage racks. Some may carry a dingy with trolling motors to enjoy oneself when you get to those exotic islands. Formula One cars probably have special coolant systems and heat protection for the drivers.
The leading driver of High Technology is convenience. And convenience is often driven by the simplest of human needs and motivations. Some of us might be driven by theoretical perfection, but the objects in you metaphors are not.
Squeak removes many of the barriers between art, multimedia, science, research, testing, business processes, information archiving/processing/presentation, simulations, education, fun-and-games, and more. Its at these edges, or borders, where disruptive technologies are born.
In a world of C++ business tools, Visual Basic became an everymans programming tool before it became a leading business tool.
Why cant Squeak/Croquet become David Brins shared galactic library? _____
"What's the relationship between the Space Shuttle And The Width Of A Horse's Behind?
The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches.
That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts. So who built these old rutted roads?
The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made by, or for, Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
Thus we have the answer to the original question.
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right - because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back-ends of two war horses.
When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at a factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line to the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than a railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's ass."
Cheers, Darius :)
Hi, Darius!
I hope my little trip into hyperbole can be forgiven; of course my point was not that Squeak "must not" be practical but simply that it need not be obsessed with duplicating every existing function when there's so much new ground to explore. Having said that, though, I'll also admit I believe Squeak *could* perform those existing functions very well, and have pointed out that anyone wanting or needing such functions can probably work them out more easily in Squeak than elsewhere. In fact, I suspect someone may soon post such a solution to the problem Blake presented, simply to show it can be done.
Regarding the horse's contribution to rocket science, it strikes me that because the Mac and Windows are at their heart impaired efforts to emulate Smalltalk, much if not all that can be done in those limited emulations can be done better in Squeak, which is Smalltalk evolved. It has been said that recursion can only be understood if one first understands recursion; making Squeak mimic a Windows impersonation of Smalltalk sounds like a good beginning on that journey. <G>
Gary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Darius" squeakuser@inglang.com To: "Gary Fisher" gafisher@sprynet.com Cc: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 5:52 PM Subject: Re: Squeak's "general acceptance"
Gary,
Regarding the Space Shuttle, there's more to it than you may know... hidden constrains from the prosaic. See below. The shuttle's lavatory is a feat of engineering too, why bother with that?
Regarding hydroplanes, I've been on hydroplane ferries that have luggage racks. Some may carry a dingy with trolling motors to enjoy oneself when you get to those exotic islands. Formula One cars probably have special coolant systems and heat protection for the drivers.
The leading driver of High Technology is convenience. And convenience is often driven by the simplest of human needs and motivations. Some of us might be driven by theoretical perfection, but the objects in you metaphors are not.
Squeak removes many of the barriers between art, multimedia, science, research, testing, business processes, information archiving/processing/presentation, simulations, education, fun-and-games, and more. It's at these edges, or borders, where disruptive technologies are born.
In a world of C++ business tools, Visual Basic became an everyman's programming tool before it became a leading business tool.
Why can't Squeak/Croquet become David Brin's "shared galactic library"? _____
"What's the relationship between the Space Shuttle And The Width Of A Horse's Behind?
The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches.
That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts. So who built these old rutted roads?
The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made by, or for, Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
Thus we have the answer to the original question.
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right - because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back-ends of two war horses.
When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at a factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line to the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than a railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's ass."
Cheers, Darius :)
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0527-0, 07/04/2005 Tested on: 7/6/05 8:25:01 PM avast! is copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com
Let's recap this all too oft-repeated thread:
1. Squeak is not generally accepted. 2. Generally accepted platforms have feature X 3. Squeak should have feature X to become generally accepted.
the discussion proceeds:
1. Quibbles about whether S is generally accepted, or whether S should be GA 2. Quibbles about whether the feaature actually exists in GA systems 3. Quibbles about whether X is sufficient to bring S closer to GA
Feh, just feh. None of this matters, right or wrong.
Squeak is an OPEN SOURCE PROJECT. If you think S should have a feature, build it please. Darwin will determine whether your arguments on 1, 2 or 3 are right. If you don't or can't implement it, ask for the feature. If you can't sell it, Darwin determines that result.
It may be inferred from the failure to implement what you seek that not all the assumptions 1, 2, 3 are accurate, or the conclusion suggested necessarily follows therefrom. Prove us wrong, that would be good. Don't do anything to move the ball forward, we all have more important things to do.
Please do not misunderstand -- this is a fundamental property of OSS projects. Quibbleds about what isn't there isn't generally interesting in the absence of a changeset.
Nicely put!
On 7/6/05, Andrew Greenberg werdna@mucow.com wrote:
Let's recap this all too oft-repeated thread:
- Squeak is not generally accepted.
- Generally accepted platforms have feature X
- Squeak should have feature X to become generally accepted.
the discussion proceeds:
- Quibbles about whether S is generally accepted, or whether
S should be GA 2. Quibbles about whether the feaature actually exists in GA systems 3. Quibbles about whether X is sufficient to bring S closer to GA
Feh, just feh. None of this matters, right or wrong.
Squeak is an OPEN SOURCE PROJECT. If you think S should have a feature, build it please. Darwin will determine whether your arguments on 1, 2 or 3 are right. If you don't or can't implement it, ask for the feature. If you can't sell it, Darwin determines that result.
It may be inferred from the failure to implement what you seek that not all the assumptions 1, 2, 3 are accurate, or the conclusion suggested necessarily follows therefrom. Prove us wrong, that would be good. Don't do anything to move the ball forward, we all have more important things to do.
Please do not misunderstand -- this is a fundamental property of OSS projects. Quibbleds about what isn't there isn't generally interesting in the absence of a changeset.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 19:39:06 -0700, Andrew Greenberg werdna@mucow.com wrote:
Let's recap this all too oft-repeated thread:
1. Squeak is not generally accepted. 2. Generally accepted platforms have feature X 3. Squeak should have feature X to become generally accepted.
X was the website. We then did (my fault, I guess):
4. Feature Y is more important than feature X for GA. 5a. You mean feature Y2*? 'cause we have that. 5b. So what? 5c. We have feature Y, or will have it in spades shortly.
I really didn't mean to be as, em, =thoroughly= discussed as it was--it was a casual observation--but since I didn't know about Y2 (Seaside table presentation) I'm glad it was.
===Blake===
* A hollow voice says "Plugh"
Very neat except that the cart rut thingy is a complete myth.
:-)) Torsten
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:34:14 -0700, Torsten Sadowski moehl@akaflieg.extern.tu-berlin.de wrote:
Very neat except that the cart rut thingy is a complete myth.
Or as Snopes puts it:
This is one of those items that -- although wrong in many of its details — isn't exactly false in an overall sense and is perhaps more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons."
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andrew Greenberg -
Blake -
Darius -
Gary Fisher -
John Pierce -
Torsten Sadowski