Jecel ,
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by relative standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
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?
Was it in 1972 or 1976 or 1980?
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?
For that matter, did the commercial Smalltalk vendors insist likewise?
Cheers,
PhiHo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jecel Assumpcao Jr" jecel@merlintec.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: YASoB (was Re: some news)
PhiHo,
"Alan Kay" wrote:
"... it really bothers me that so many people on this list are satisfied with Smalltalk-80 (Yikes!) But that's another soapbox."
Dear Seasoned Squeakers,
I have followed this list for a while and I have a feeling that Alan Kay is not particularly fond of Smalltalk-80.
I've been wondering why or maybe I got it wrong.
Your thought is very much appreciated.
I really hope if Alan is not too busy we will be able to hear it straight from the Dragon's mouth. ;-)
Rather than speaking for Alan, I will just quote two paragraphs from his "Early History of Smalltalk" (there is a link to a PDF version in Stef's Free Books page and there is a html version with some missing pictures at http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html):
I will try to show where most of the influences came from and how they were transformed in the magnetic field formed by the new personal computing metaphor. It was the attitudes as well as the great ideas of the pioneers that helped Smalltalk get invented. Many of the people I admired most at this time--such as Ivan Sutherland, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Gordon Moore, Bob Barton, Dave Evans, Butler Lampson, Jerome Bruner, and others--seemed to have a splendid sense that their creations, though wonderful by relative standards, were not near to the absolute thresholds that had to be crossed. Small minds try to form religions, the great ones just want better routes up the mountain. Where Newton said he saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants, computer scientists all too often stand on each other's toes. Myopia is still a problem where there are giants' shoulders to stand on--"outsight" is better than insight--but it can be minimized by using glasses whose lenses are highly sensitive to esthetics and criticism.
and
New ideas go through stages of acceptance, both from within and without.
From within, the sequence moves from "barely seeing" a pattern several
times, then noting it but not perceiving its "cosmic" significance, then using it operationally in several areas, then comes a "grand rotation" in which the pattern becomes the center of a new way of thinking, and finally, it turns into the same kind of inflexible religion that it originally broke away from. From without, as Schopenhauer noted, the new idea is first denounced as the work of the insane, in a few years it is considered obvious and mundane, and finally the original denouncers will claim to have invented it.
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by relative standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
--Jecel
Have you really looked at Smalltalk-72? Do you think that you could build a real system with each class been able to define its own syntax? It depends what is the goal of the language. If this is to build application it seems that ST-80 is better than 72. At least with my taste.
Stef
I have a feeling that to many Smalltakers, in general, therehave been no advances in software engineering and computer language design since Smalltalk was invented.
When was Smalltalk really invented? Was it in 1972 or 1976 or 1980? 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? For that matter, did the commercial Smalltalk vendors insist likewise? Cheers, PhiHo----- Original Message ----- From: "Jecel Assumpcao Jr" jecel@merlintec.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: YASoB (was Re: some news)
PhiHo,
"Alan Kay" wrote:
"... it really bothers me that so many people on this list are satisfied with Smalltalk-80 (Yikes!) But that's another soapbox."
Dear Seasoned Squeakers,
I have followed this list for a while and I have a feeling that Alan Kay is not particularly fond of Smalltalk-80.
I've been wondering why or maybe I got it wrong.
Your thought is very much appreciated.
I really hope if Alan is not too busy we will be able to hear it straight from the Dragon's mouth. ;-)
Rather than speaking for Alan, I will just quote two paragraphs from his "Early History of Smalltalk" (there is a link to a PDF version in Stef's Free Books page and there is a html version with some missing pictures at http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html):
I will try to show where most of the influences came from and how they were transformed in the magnetic field formed by the new personal computing metaphor. It was the attitudes as well as the great ideas of the pioneers that helped Smalltalk get invented. Many of the people I admired most at this time--such as Ivan Sutherland, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Gordon Moore, Bob Barton, Dave Evans, Butler Lampson, Jerome Bruner, and others--seemed to have a splendid sense that their creations, though wonderful by relative standards, were not near to the absolute thresholds that had to be crossed. Small minds try to form religions, the great ones just want better routes up the mountain. Where Newton said he saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants, computer scientists all too often stand on each other's toes. Myopia is still a problem where there are giants' shoulders to stand on--"outsight" is better than insight--but it can be minimized by using glasses whose lenses are highly sensitive to esthetics and criticism.
and
New ideas go through stages of acceptance, both from within and without.
From within, the sequence moves from "barely seeing" a pattern several
times, then noting it but not perceiving its "cosmic" significance, then using it operationally in several areas, then comes a "grand rotation" in which the pattern becomes the center of a new way of thinking, and finally, it turns into the same kind of inflexible religion that it originally broke away from. From without, as Schopenhauer noted, the new idea is first denounced as the work of the insane, in a few years it is considered obvious and mundane, and finally the original denouncers will claim to have invented it.
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by relative standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
--Jecel
"stéphane ducasse" wrote:
Have you really looked at Smalltalk-72?
Actually, not yet.
I am hoping that some good souls will shed some light, so that I can decide whether I should look at Smalltalk-80 or 76 or 72 or even Squeak 3.9 beta ;-)
Nah, maybe, I shall look at Dolphin. (after it's been Traitorised, of course ;-) ;-)
Do you think that you could build a real system
Please define "real system".
Do you mean Smalltalk-72 support only integers ;-)
with each class been able to define its own syntax?
Very interesting.
I didn't know that, thanks for telling, Stef.
Why do you think you cannot build a real system with St-72 because each class in St-72 can define its own syntax.
It depends what is the goal of the language.
This is a billion dollars question.
If this is to build application it seems that ST-80 is better than 72. At least with my taste.
So the goal of ST-80 (or should it be St-80) is for building application.
By application you mean real commercial stuff like MS Office or Oracle DBMS?
Would you please tell what's the goal of St-72?
For that matter, what's the goal for Squeak?
Cheers,
PhiHo
I have a feeling that to many Smalltakers, in general, therehave been no advances in software engineering and computer language design since Smalltalk was invented.
When was Smalltalk really invented? Was it in 1972 or 1976 or 1980? 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? For that matter, did the commercial Smalltalk vendors insist likewise? Cheers, PhiHo----- Original Message ----- From: "Jecel Assumpcao Jr" jecel@merlintec.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: YASoB (was Re: some news)
PhiHo,
"Alan Kay" wrote:
"... it really bothers me that so many people on this list are satisfied with Smalltalk-80 (Yikes!) But that's another soapbox."
Dear Seasoned Squeakers,
I have followed this list for a while and I have a feeling that Alan Kay is not particularly fond of Smalltalk-80.
I've been wondering why or maybe I got it wrong.
Your thought is very much appreciated.
I really hope if Alan is not too busy we will be able to hear it straight from the Dragon's mouth. ;-)
Rather than speaking for Alan, I will just quote two paragraphs from his "Early History of Smalltalk" (there is a link to a PDF version in Stef's Free Books page and there is a html version with some missing pictures at http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html):
I will try to show where most of the influences came from and how they were transformed in the magnetic field formed by the new personal computing metaphor. It was the attitudes as well as the great ideas of the pioneers that helped Smalltalk get invented. Many of the people I admired most at this time--such as Ivan Sutherland, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Gordon Moore, Bob Barton, Dave Evans, Butler Lampson, Jerome Bruner, and others--seemed to have a splendid sense that their creations, though wonderful by relative standards, were not near to the absolute thresholds that had to be crossed. Small minds try to form religions, the great ones just want better routes up the mountain. Where Newton said he saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants, computer scientists all too often stand on each other's toes. Myopia is still a problem where there are giants' shoulders to stand on--"outsight" is better than insight--but it can be minimized by using glasses whose lenses are highly sensitive to esthetics and criticism.
and
New ideas go through stages of acceptance, both from within and without.
From within, the sequence moves from "barely seeing" a pattern several
times, then noting it but not perceiving its "cosmic" significance, then using it operationally in several areas, then comes a "grand rotation" in which the pattern becomes the center of a new way of thinking, and finally, it turns into the same kind of inflexible religion that it originally broke away from. From without, as Schopenhauer noted, the new idea is first denounced as the work of the insane, in a few years it is considered obvious and mundane, and finally the original denouncers will claim to have invented it.
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by relative standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
--Jecel
PhiHo,
Jecel ,
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by relative standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
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.
Lispers feel the same way. We have to be careful not to make the opposite mistake ("only the old stuff was good") which is just another form of chronological snobbery.
When was Smalltalk really invented? Was it in 1972 or 1976 or 1980?
In 1972 we got the seed (objects and messages) and in 1976 the current form (vm, classes as objects, inheritance).
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?
"Better" and "worse" don't always apply - I can't compare Smalltalk with Prolog, for example. But I can compare Smalltalk with Java or Ruby even though it is still complicated even in these cases.
As far as I know the goal of Squeak Central was to create the eToys system and they needed a universal platform to build it on. They had no wish to spend their time on such a platform so given the hype around Java back then they considered using that. The shocking part was that even though it was much newer and borrowed some aspects from Smalltalk it was in general "worse". In part this was on purpose ("oh.... the average programmer can't understand or handle that...") and in part it was ignorance (Guy Steele was brought in late in the project to help with the documentation and ended up fixing some minor technical problems but had to leave the major ones alone) but it was felt at the time that doing eToys in Java would be a larger effort than cleaning up the old Apple Smalltalk and using that. If my impressions of Squeak and Java history are wrong I hope someone will correct me.
Note that John Maloney came to Squeak Central from the Self project. Some people (including me) feel that Self is better than Smalltalk-80 but John said in an interview that going back to the older system made him more comfortable (I understood him to mean specially the "whole system" view that the browser gives you compared to the more piecemeal views that you get with Self's outliners). And there are tradeoffs: when Logo was created from Lisp it dropped closures (making it worse) because they got in the way of the language's goals.
What I am saying is: imagine that someone is creating a new language today. And then you look at what they are doing and give them a good demo of APL. They might say "I considered that, but in this part of my language...." or (which is far more common) they might say "Wow! I never imagined there could be something like that!"
Certainly the latter never was the case for Squeak Central.
For that matter, did the commercial Smalltalk vendors insist likewise?
Vendors are by their very nature conservative (their customers value stability). David Simmons (SmalltalkAgents, S#) seems to me to be the only one from that part of the world who is willing to explore new ideas.
-- Jecel
At 10:03 AM 5/18/2006, SmallSqueak wrote: --snip--
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
Cheers, PhiHo----- Original Message ----- From: "Jecel Assumpcao Jr" jecel@merlintec.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: YASoB (was Re: some news)
PhiHo,
"Alan Kay" wrote:
"... it really bothers me that so many people on this list are satisfied with Smalltalk-80 (Yikes!) But that's another soapbox."
Dear Seasoned Squeakers,
I have followed this list for a while and I have a feeling that Alan Kay is not particularly fond of Smalltalk-80.
I've been wondering why or maybe I got it wrong.
Your thought is very much appreciated.
I really hope if Alan is not too busy we will be able to hear it straight from the Dragon's mouth. ;-)
Rather than speaking for Alan, I will just quote two paragraphs from his "Early History of Smalltalk" (there is a link to a PDF version in Stef's Free Books page and there is a html version with some missing pictures at http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html):
I will try to show where most of the influences came from and how they were transformed in the magnetic field formed by the new personal computing metaphor. It was the attitudes as well as the great ideas of the pioneers that helped Smalltalk get invented. Many of the people I admired most at this time--such as Ivan Sutherland, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Gordon Moore, Bob Barton, Dave Evans, Butler Lampson, Jerome Bruner, and others--seemed to have a splendid sense that their creations, though wonderful by relative standards, were not near to the absolute thresholds that had to be crossed. Small minds try to form religions, the great ones just want better routes up the mountain. Where Newton said he saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants, computer scientists all too often stand on each other's toes. Myopia is still a problem where there are giants' shoulders to stand on--"outsight" is better than insight--but it can be minimized by using glasses whose lenses are highly sensitive to esthetics and criticism.
and
New ideas go through stages of acceptance, both from within and without.
From within, the sequence moves from "barely seeing" a pattern several
times, then noting it but not perceiving its "cosmic" significance, then using it operationally in several areas, then comes a "grand rotation" in which the pattern becomes the center of a new way of thinking, and finally, it turns into the same kind of inflexible religion that it originally broke away from. From without, as Schopenhauer noted, the new idea is first denounced as the work of the insane, in a few years it is considered obvious and mundane, and finally the original denouncers will claim to have invented it.
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by relative standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
--Jecel
Hi Alan,
I have cancelled many replies to this post.
There are so many questions I like to ask and I am not sure if they are appropriate.
I have a feeling that when Smalltalk was invented it was meant to be a computer language and environment for children to play with to invent the future.
From "The Early History of Smalltalk" (13 years ago) :
<QUOTE> V. 1976-80--The first modern Smalltalk (-76), its birth, applications, and improvements
By the end of 1975 I felt that we were losing our balance--that the "Dynabook for children" idea was slowily dimming out--or perhaps starting to be overwhelmed by professional needs. In January 1976, I took the whole group to Pajaro Dunes for a three day offsite to bring up the issues and try to reset the compass. It was called "Let's Burn Our Disk Packs." There were no shouting matches, the group liked (I would go so far to say: loved) each other too much for that. But we were troubled. I used the old aphorism that "no biological organism can live in its own waste products" to please for a really fresh start: a hw-sw system very different from the ALTO and Smalltalk, One thing we all did agree on was that the current Smalltalk's power did not match our various levels of aspiration. I thought we needed something different, as I did not see how OOP by itself was going to solve our end-user problems. Others, particularly some of the grad students, really wanted a better Smalltalk that was faster and could be used for bigger problems. I think Dan felt that a better Smalltalk could be the vehicle for the different system I wanted, but could not describe clearly. The meeting was not a disaster, and we went back to PARC still friends and colleagues, but the absolute cohesiveness of the first four years never rejelled. I started designing a new small machine and language I called the NoteTaker and dan started to design Smalltalk-76.
</QUOTE>
"Let's Burn Our Disk Packs."
How many times did you want to do this and did you ever do it?
Considering that Squeak is "a living thing", I really love this following quote:
"NO BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM CAN LIVE IN ITS OWN WASTE PRODUCTS" TO PLEAD FOR A REALLY FRESH START
(capitalization is mine and "please" was changed to PLEAD)
<QUOTE> VI. 1980-83--The release version of Smalltalk (-80)
As Dan said "the decision not to continue the NoteTaker project added motivation to release Smalltalk widely." But not for me. By this time I was both happy about the cleanliness and elegance of the Smalltalk conception as realized by Dan and theothers, and sad that it was farther away than ever from Children--it came to me as a shock that no child had programmed in any Smalltalk since Smalltalk-76 made its debut. Xerox (and PARC) were now into "workstations" as things in themselves--but I still wanted "playstations". </QUOTE>
I sincerely wish that children will be able to comprehend Squeak and program in it.
I am wondering how many people on this list can assert that they fully comprehend the "kitchen sink" Squeak.
It would be a big shock to me if no one can assert that.
The big problem is that most programmers have a very hard time thinking about facilitating programming for people who are not like them,
Are these "people" the children that Smalltalk was intended for?
What about:
<QUOTE> ...
A twentieth century problem is that technology has become too "easy". When it was hard to do anything whether good or bad, enough time was taken so that the result was usually good. Now we can make things almost trivially, especially in software, but most of the designs are trivial as well. This is inverse vandalism: the making of things because you can. Couple this to even less sophisticated buyers and you have generated an exploitation marketplace similar to that set up for teenagers. A counter to this is to generate enormous disatisfaction with one's designs using the entire history of human art as a standard and goal. Then the trick is to decouple the disatisfaction from self worth--otherwise it is either too depressing or one stops too soon with trivial results.
</QUOTE>
and now it's 21st century.
(Just wondering how often did SqC have to race a deadline ;-)
and they also have a very hard time understanding media.
Would you please elaborate on this.
Cheers,
PhiHo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Kay" alan.kay@squeakland.org To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org; "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:09 PM Subject: Re: YASoB (was Re: some news)
At 10:03 AM 5/18/2006, SmallSqueak wrote: --snip--
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
Cheers, PhiHo----- Original Message ----- From: "Jecel Assumpcao Jr" jecel@merlintec.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: YASoB (was Re: some news)
PhiHo,
"Alan Kay" wrote:
"... it really bothers me that so many people on this list are satisfied with Smalltalk-80 (Yikes!) But that's another soapbox."
Dear Seasoned Squeakers,
I have followed this list for a while and I have a feeling that Alan Kay is not particularly fond of Smalltalk-80.
I've been wondering why or maybe I got it wrong.
Your thought is very much appreciated.
I really hope if Alan is not too busy we will be able to hear it straight from the Dragon's mouth. ;-)
Rather than speaking for Alan, I will just quote two paragraphs from
his
"Early History of Smalltalk" (there is a link to a PDF version in
Stef's
Free Books page and there is a html version with some missing pictures at http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html):
I will try to show where most of the influences came from and how they were transformed in the magnetic field formed by the new personal computing metaphor. It was the attitudes as well as the great ideas of the pioneers that helped Smalltalk get invented. Many of the people I admired most at this time--such as Ivan Sutherland, Marvin Minsky, Seymour Papert, Gordon Moore, Bob Barton, Dave Evans, Butler Lampson, Jerome Bruner, and others--seemed to have a splendid sense that their creations, though wonderful by relative standards, were not near to
the
absolute thresholds that had to be crossed. Small minds try to form religions, the great ones just want better routes up the mountain.
Where
Newton said he saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants, computer scientists all too often stand on each other's toes. Myopia
is
still a problem where there are giants' shoulders to stand on--"outsight" is better than insight--but it can be minimized by
using
glasses whose lenses are highly sensitive to esthetics and criticism.
and
New ideas go through stages of acceptance, both from within and
without.
From within, the sequence moves from "barely seeing" a pattern
several
times, then noting it but not perceiving its "cosmic" significance,
then
using it operationally in several areas, then comes a "grand rotation" in which the pattern becomes the center of a new way of thinking, and finally, it turns into the same kind of inflexible religion that it originally broke away from. From without, as Schopenhauer noted, the
new
idea is first denounced as the work of the insane, in a few years it
is
considered obvious and mundane, and finally the original denouncers
will
claim to have invented it.
My comment on this is that Smalltalk-80 was indeed wonderful by
relative
standards, but it shouldn't become a religion that keeps us from inventing something better. Though this isn't nearly as sad as people who keep insisting on creating things that are worse while the public assumes it is automatically better than something "old" like Smalltalk (what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery").
--Jecel
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Kay -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr -
SmallSqueak -
stéphane ducasse