On 25 July 2011 09:47, Alan Kay <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Thiago > > To me, there is not nearly enough context to publish this outside this list. > I like arguments and complaints that are well supported. I don't like the > all too general practice on the web of "mere opinions" about any and all > things. > > One of the most interesting aspects to me about the reactions to the web is > that the glaring mistakes in systems design from the very beginning were > hardly noticed and complained about. The mess that constitutes the current > so-called "standards" is astounding -- and worse -- is hugely inconvenient > and blocks any number of things that are part of personal computing. > > When we did Squeak ca 1996 this was not such a problem because one could > generally provide executable plugins and helpers that would allow getting > around the problems of the browsers and web. This is still possible, except > that more and more since then, many SysAdmins in important destinations for > software -- such as school districts and many companies -- will not allow > anyone to download an executable plugin when needed. This is largely because > they fear that these cannot be run safely by their MS OS. >
I think that there is only one successful example of browser plugin which earned enough trust from "sysadmins" to make it installed - Flash. If you watch it's evolution over the years, you can see, it evolved from a quite simple graphics and animation "addon" into a full-fledged ecosystem, which Squeak and smalltalk has from the very beginning. It is really a pity, that we have a systems which has no trust from users side. Interestingly that many today's trendy and popular things (which we know today as web) were invented as a temporary solution without any systematic approach. I think that i will be right by saying that most of these technologies (like PHP, Javascript, Ruby, Sendmail etc) is a result of random choice instead making planning and a deep study of problem field before doing anything. And that's why no surprise, they are failing to grow. And now, people trying to fill the gaps in those technologies with security, scalability and so on.. Because they are now well established standards.. while originally was not meant to be used in such form from the beginning. In contrast, as you mentioned, TCP/IP protocol which is backbone of today's internet having much better design. But i think this is a general problem of software evolution. No matter how hard you try, you cannot foresee all kinds of interactions, features and use cases for your system, when you designing it from the beginning. Because 20 years ago, systems has completely different requirements, comparing to today's ones. So, what was good enough 20 years ago, today is not very good. And here the problem: is hard to radically change the software, especially core concepts, because everyone using it, get used to it , because it made standard. So you have to maintain compatibility and invent workarounds , patches and fixes on top of existing things, rather than radically change the landscape. > This means that what can be done in the browser by combinations of the > standard tools -- especially JavaScript -- now becomes mission critical. > > For example, some of our next version of Etoys for children could be done in > JS, but not all -- e.g. the Kedama massively parallel programmable particle > system made by Yoshiki cannot be implemented to run fast enough in JS. It > needs something much faster and lower level -- and this something has not > existed until the Chrome native client (and this only in Chrome which is > only about 11% penetrated). > > So today there is no general solution for this intolerable situation. We've > got Microsoft unable to make a trusted OS, so the SysAdmins ban executables. > And we've got the unsophisticated browser and web folks who don't understand > operating systems at all. And this on machines whose CPUs have address space > protection built in and could easily run many such computations completely > safely! Yikes! Where are we? In some Danteish "9th Circle of Fumbling"? > > Cheers, > > Alan > > ________________________________ > From: Thiago Silva <[email protected]> > To: Alan Kay <[email protected]>; Fundamentals of New Computing > <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, July 24, 2011 1:41:33 PM > Subject: Re: [fonc] Alan Kay talk at HPI in Potsdam > > Hello Dr. Alan, > > Since access to fonc list archives is closed to members, would you allow me > to > publish your email below elsewhere for public access? It is the most rich > and > informative critique I've found about the web (plus the non-authoring nature > of the browser you've mentioned before). > > Cheers, > Thiago > > On Sunday 24 July 2011 14:24:20 Alan Kay wrote: >> Hi Marcel >> >> I think I've already said a bit about the Web on this list -- mostly about >> the complete misunderstanding of the situation the web and browser >> designers had. >> >> >> All the systems principles needed for a good design were already extant, >> but I don't think they were known to the designers, even though many of >> them were embedded in the actual computers and operating systems they >> used. >> >> The simplest way to see what I'm talking about is to notice the many-many >> things that could be done on a personal computer/workstation that couldn't >> be done in the web & browser running on the very same personal >> computer/workstation. There was never any good reason for these >> differences. >> >> Another way to look at this is from the point of view of "separation of >> concerns". A big question in any system is "how much does 'Part A' have to >> know about 'Part B' (and vice versa) in order to make things happen?" The >> web and browser designs fail on this really badly, and have forced set >> after set of weak conventions into larger and larger, but still weak >> browsers and, worse, onto zillions of web pages on the net. >> >> >> Basically, one of the main parts of good systems design is to try to find >> ways to finesse safe actions without having to know much. So -- for >> example -- Squeak runs everywhere because it can carry all of its own >> resources with it, and the OS processes/address-spaces allow it to run >> safely, but do not have to know anything about Squeak to run it. Similarly >> Squeak does not have to know much to run on every machine - just how to >> get events, a display buffer, and to map its file conventions onto the >> local ones. On a bare machine, Squeak *is* the OS, etc. So much for old >> ideas from the 70s! >> >> The main idea here is that a windowing 2.5 D UI can compose views from >> many >> sources into a "page". The sources can be opaque because they can even do >> their own rendering if needed. Since the sources can run in protected >> address-spaces their actions can be confined, and "we" the mini-OS running >> all this do not have to know anything about them. This is how apps work on >> personal computers, and there is no reason why things shouldn't work this >> way when the address-spaces come from other parts of the net. There would >> then be no difference between "local" and "global" apps. >> >> Since parts of the address spaces can be externalized, indexing as rich >> (and richer) to what we have now still can be done. >> >> And so forth. >> >> The Native Client part of Chrome finally allows what should have been done >> in the first place (we are now about 20+ years after the first web >> proposals by Berners-Lee). However, this approach will need to be adopted >> by most of the already existing multiple browsers before it can really be >> used in a practical way in the world of personal computing -- and there >> are signs that there is not a lot of agreement or understanding why this >> would be a good thing. >> >> >> The sad and odd thing is that so many people in the computer field were so >> lacking in "systems consciousness" that they couldn't see this, and failed >> to complain mightily as the web was being set up and a really painful >> genii was being let out of the bottle. >> >> As Kurt Vonnegut used to say "And so it goes". >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Marcel Weiher <[email protected]> >> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> >> Cc: Alan Kay <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, July 24, 2011 5:39:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Alan Kay talk at HPI in Potsdam >> >> >> Hi Alan, >> >> as usual, it was inspiring talking to your colleagues and hearing you >> speak >> at Potsdam. I think I finally got the Model-T image, which resonated with >> my fondness for Objective-C: a language that a 17 year old with no >> experience with compilers or runtimes can implement and that manages to >> boil down dynamic OO/messaging to a single special function can't be all >> bad :-) >> >> There was one question I had on the scaling issue that would not have >> fitted in the Q&A: while praising the design of the Internet, you spoke >> less well of the World Wide Web, which surprised me a bit. Can you >> elaborate? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Marcel >> >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2011, at 6:29 , Alan Kay wrote: >> >> To All, >> >> >This wound up being a talk to several hundred students, so most of the >> >content is about "ways to think about things", with just a little about >> >scaling and STEPS at the end. >> > >> >Cheers, >> > >> >Alan > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
