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
oth
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 const
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
a
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
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
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nii1n8PYLrc
Thoughts?
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
