Still, databases and file systems are both based on concepts that
predate electronic computers.
When Windows and Macs came along the document metaphor became
prevalent, but in practice this was always just a user friendly name
for a file. The layers and layers of slightly broken metaphors never
On 6/22/2011 5:08 PM, Steve Wart wrote:
Still, databases and file systems are both based on concepts that
predate electronic computers.
When Windows and Macs came along the document metaphor became
prevalent, but in practice this was always just a user friendly name
for a file. The layers and
On 23/06/2011, at 10:08 AM, Steve Wart wrote:
So how can you make simple languages simple to use? Developers have
been rejecting complex GUIs in favour of plain text. If Google and
Apple are right, every program component isn't a file on a disk, but
rather some network accessible resource.
The emergence of ubiquitous internet media and the distribution architecture
we've built around it has shifted attention to the communication needs of
people. Many are employed in the Web industry and others unemployed...
market forces come into play. It's all possible because of established (and
On 23/06/2011, at 12:35 PM, Max OrHai wrote:
People who want a small language should be prepared to be somewhat
idiosyncratic, if they want to express big or complex programs. I mean
'language' here not just in terms of a programming language definition but
rather to mean all constructs
I wish that emacs / vi, GBD, and the Unix shell had anything close to the
n00b mode provided by Squeak in terms of inline documentation, tool tips,
menus etc.. But, yeah, Squeak has serious problems, and you're absolutely
right that it's too hard to tinker with the core of it, just like every
