One issue with the instance development in Squeak is that it is quite fragile. It is easy to pull the building blocks apart and it all falls down like a house of cards.
It's currently hard to work on different parts and individually version them independent of the rest of the system. All parts are versioned by the whole project. It is also quite hard to reuse separate parts and share is with others. Now you must share a whole project and pull out the parts you want. I look forward to using more rugged tools for instance programming/ creation :-) Karl On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> wrote: > It's worth noting that this was the scheme at PARC and was used heavily > later in Etoys. > > This is why Smalltalk has unlimited numbers of "Projects". Each one is a > persistant environment that serves both as a place to make things and as a > "page" of "desktop media". > > There are no apps, only objects and any and all objects can be brought to > any project which will preserve them over time. This avoids the stovepiping > of apps. Dan Ingalls (in Fabrik) showed one UI and scheme to integrate the > objects, and George Bosworth's PARTS system showed a similar but slightly > different way. > > Also there is no "presentation app" in Etoys, just an object that allows > projects to be put in any order -- and there can many many such orderings > all preserved -- and there is an object that will move from one project to > the next as you give your talk. "Builds" etc are all done via Etoy scripts. > > This allows the full power of the system to be used for everything, > including presentations. You can imagine how appalled we were by the > appearance of Persuade and PowerPoint, etc. > > Etc. > > We thought we'd done away with both "operating systems" and with "apps" > but we'd used the wrong wood in our stakes -- the vampires came back in the > 80s. > > One of the interesting misunderstandings was that Apple and then MS didn't > really understand the universal viewing mechanism (MVC) so they thought > views with borders around them were "windows" and view without borders were > part of "desktop publishing", but in fact all were the same. The Xerox Star > confounded the problem by reverting to a single desktop and apps and missed > the real media possibilities. > > They divided a unified media world into two regimes, neither of which are > very good for end-users. > > Cheers, > > Alan > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:58 AM > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Task management in a world without apps. > > Instead of 'applications', you have objects you can manipulate (compose, > decompose, rearrange, etc.) in a common environment. The state of the > system, the construction of the objects, determines not only how they > appear but how they behave - i.e. how they influence and observe the world. > Task management is then simply rearranging objects: if you want to turn an > object 'off', you 'disconnect' part of the graph, or perhaps you flip a > switch that does the same thing under the hood. > > This has very physical analogies. For example, there are at least two ways > to "task manage" a light: you could disconnect your lightbulb from its > socket, or you could flip a lightswitch, which opens a circuit. > > There are a few interesting classes of objects, which might be described > as 'tools'. There are tools for your hand, like different paintbrushes in > Paint Shop. There are also tools for your eyes/senses, like a magnifying > glass, x-ray goggles, heads-up display, events notification, or language > translation. And there are tools that touch both aspects - like a > projectional editor, lenses. If we extend the user-model with concepts like > 'inventory', and programmable tools for both hand and eye, those can serve > as another form of task management. When you're done painting, put down the > paintbrush. > > This isn't really the same as switching between tasks. I.e. you can still > get event notifications on your heads-up-display while you're editing an > image. It's closer to controlling your computational environment by direct > manipulation of structure that is interpreted as code (aka live > programming). > > Best, > > Dave > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Casey Ransberger < > casey.obrie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A fun, but maybe idealistic idea: an "application" of a computer should > just be what one decides to do with it at the time. > > I've been wondering how I might best switch between "tasks" (or really > things that aren't tasks too, like toys and documentaries and symphonies) > in a world that does away with most of the application level modality that > we got with the first Mac. > > The dominant way of doing this with apps usually looks like either the OS > X dock or the Windows 95 taskbar. But if I wanted less shrink wrap and more > interoperability between the virtual things I'm interacting with on a > computer, without forcing me to "multitask" (read: do more than one thing > at once very badly,) what's my best possible interaction language look like? > > I would love to know if these tools came from some interesting research > once upon a time. I'd be grateful for any references that can be shared. > I'm also interested in hearing any wild ideas that folks might have, or > great ideas that fell by the wayside way back when. > > Out of curiosity, how does one change one's "mood" when interacting with > Frank? > > Casey > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
