Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:37:03AM -0700: > [snip] >> Which is why, more and more, I am viewing the whole computer and all its >> tools as one continuous system; and I find pronouncements as to what is >> the One True Application Language to be, well, a little shallow and off >> point. > > Is *that* what you mean? > > Okay then. > > I'm coming at the from the other side -- I don't want "One" anything. > > I want a toolbox. I want lots of toolboxes, some of them incompatible. > > I want a variety of options, all evolving in their own directions, all > inventing their own solutions, all constructing their own world-views. > > There's a quote by some smalltalker that I can't be bothered to look > up right now, but it basically consisted of an observation that > operating systems are only needed to handle deficiencies in the > programming language. > > I took the other road -- so while I like the smalltalk syntax, > and the object model, and the flexibility... I don't care much for > the "we're all you need right here in this box" world-view. > > And I thought you were treading close to that line. I had failed > to understand what you were saying. > > Thank you for clarifying that point. >
things I want to mention: duality tools for doing things tools for UI (building, invoking, ..) dilemma: DRY vs endless specialization aspect-oriented-programming, maybe -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
