Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
On Mar 16, 2012, at 0:03 , Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: > Marcel Weiher wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:33:07 +0100 >> I have a little Postscript interpreter/scratchpad in the AppStore >> (TouchScript, >> http://itunes.apple.com/en/app/touchscript/id398914579?mt=8 ). Admittedly, >> it >> was mostly a trial balloon to see if something like that would be accepted, >> and >> it was (2nd revision so far). And somewhat surprisingly a (very) few people >> even seem to be using it! >> >> Sharing is via iTunes. > > Thanks for the tip! I see your description is "Use the Postscript(tm) > language to express your ideas and see the results on your iPhone. > Transfer your creations to your computer via iTunes sharing as either > PNG or Postscript documents." > It is likely that the reviewers considered that "Postscript documents" > means a text file (like a .pdf or .doc). Or a .m or a .c or or a .pl or a .rb or a .js … I am not sure how it is on other platforms, but on OS X program files are also documents. I see your point, but I think it is a little thin to base your argument on a single word that is at the very least ambiguous (partly on purpose) when the rest of the description is very clear that this is about a programming language and that you are programming. In addition the reviewers also actually run the program, and at that point it becomes 100% clear what this does. > The user who gave you a bad review certainly did (another user corrected > him/her). And the user(s) who corrected the first user chided him for not reading the fracking description or looking at the fracking screenshots (RTFD, LATFSS?). App Store purchasers are known for not looking at what they are buying and then complaining bitterly. Fact of life... > So this doesn't tell us what Apple would do with a language that allows you > to share > programs. I think it tells us that Apple does not, at this point, have a consistent or consistently applied policy. Which may have something to do with the fact that such a policy is impossible. So we chip away at the edges and live with the inconsistencies... Marcel ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
John Sculley was the ultimate champion of getting Hypercard from a research project to getting productized. Cheers, Alan > > From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. >To: Fundamentals of New Computing >Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:03 PM >Subject: Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA) > >Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:44:33 -0700 (PDT) >> The CRISP was too slow, and had other problems in its details. Sakoman liked >> it ... > >Thanks for the information! Just looking at the papers about it I had >the impression that it would be reasonably faster than an ARM at the >same clock frequency while having a VAX-like code density. I was going >to suggest that implementing CRISP on an FPGA could be an interesting >project for one of the grad students at my university, but that doesn't >seem to be the case. > >A rather different processor for running C (for floating point intensive >code) was the WM architecture: > >http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~wm/wm.html >http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.45.1092 > >I only heard about it because it was the inspiration for the memory >interface in the version of Chuck Thacker's Tiny Computer used in the >Beehive multicore project. This, unfortunately, is probably too complex >for a student in my group. > >> Bill Atkinson did Hypercard ... Larry made many other contributions at Xerox >> and Apple > >I know that Bill was the developer, but had the impression that Larry >had done what was needed to move from project to product. He certainly >was the one promoting it pre-launch in the old Smalltalk forums at BIX >(Byte Information eXchange). > >> To me the Dynabook has always been 95% a "service model" and 5% physical >> specs (there were three main physical ideas for it, only one was the tablet). > >2015 is almost here - time to move to the "computer in glasses" model >(lame "Back to the Future" reference, but I know you will agree). > >BGB wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:23:07 -0700 >> the TSS?... >> >> it is still usable on x86 in 32-bit Protected-Mode. > >I was thinking about about the LDT and GDT (Local Descriptor Table and >Global Descriptor Table). These still work, of course, but the current >implementations are so bad that it is faster to do the same thing 100% >in software. You do lose the security aspect, however. > >It is funny that the wish to put the TSS to good use was the big >motivation for Linux. The resulting non portability (which is a lot less >important now than then) was one of the main complaints in Andrew >Tanenbaum's famous early rant about the OS. The first attempt to port >Linux (to the Alpha, if I remember correctly) required completely >rewriting that part and the changes were quickly brought back to the >Intel version. > >Marcel Weiher wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:33:07 +0100 >> I have a little Postscript interpreter/scratchpad in the AppStore >> (TouchScript, >> http://itunes.apple.com/en/app/touchscript/id398914579?mt=8 ). Admittedly, >> it >> was mostly a trial balloon to see if something like that would be accepted, >> and >> it was (2nd revision so far). And somewhat surprisingly a (very) few people >> even seem to be using it! >> >> Sharing is via iTunes. > >Thanks for the tip! I see your description is "Use the Postscript(tm) >language to express your ideas and see the results on your iPhone. >Transfer your creations to your computer via iTunes sharing as either >PNG or Postscript documents." > >It is likely that the reviewers considered that "Postscript documents" >means a text file (like a .pdf or .doc). The user who gave you a bad >review certainly did (another user corrected him/her). So this doesn't >tell us what Apple would do with a language that allows you to share >programs. > >David Harris wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:35:06 -0700 about >Wolfram|Alpha mobile > >Thanks, but that is exactly what I was calling "just a terminal" and "a >waste". > >-- Jecel > >___ >fonc mailing list >fonc@vpri.org >http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > >___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:44:33 -0700 (PDT) > The CRISP was too slow, and had other problems in its details. Sakoman liked > it ... Thanks for the information! Just looking at the papers about it I had the impression that it would be reasonably faster than an ARM at the same clock frequency while having a VAX-like code density. I was going to suggest that implementing CRISP on an FPGA could be an interesting project for one of the grad students at my university, but that doesn't seem to be the case. A rather different processor for running C (for floating point intensive code) was the WM architecture: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~wm/wm.html http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.45.1092 I only heard about it because it was the inspiration for the memory interface in the version of Chuck Thacker's Tiny Computer used in the Beehive multicore project. This, unfortunately, is probably too complex for a student in my group. > Bill Atkinson did Hypercard ... Larry made many other contributions at Xerox > and Apple I know that Bill was the developer, but had the impression that Larry had done what was needed to move from project to product. He certainly was the one promoting it pre-launch in the old Smalltalk forums at BIX (Byte Information eXchange). > To me the Dynabook has always been 95% a "service model" and 5% physical > specs (there were three main physical ideas for it, only one was the tablet). 2015 is almost here - time to move to the "computer in glasses" model (lame "Back to the Future" reference, but I know you will agree). BGB wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:23:07 -0700 > the TSS?... > > it is still usable on x86 in 32-bit Protected-Mode. I was thinking about about the LDT and GDT (Local Descriptor Table and Global Descriptor Table). These still work, of course, but the current implementations are so bad that it is faster to do the same thing 100% in software. You do lose the security aspect, however. It is funny that the wish to put the TSS to good use was the big motivation for Linux. The resulting non portability (which is a lot less important now than then) was one of the main complaints in Andrew Tanenbaum's famous early rant about the OS. The first attempt to port Linux (to the Alpha, if I remember correctly) required completely rewriting that part and the changes were quickly brought back to the Intel version. Marcel Weiher wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:33:07 +0100 > I have a little Postscript interpreter/scratchpad in the AppStore > (TouchScript, > http://itunes.apple.com/en/app/touchscript/id398914579?mt=8 ). Admittedly, it > was mostly a trial balloon to see if something like that would be accepted, > and > it was (2nd revision so far). And somewhat surprisingly a (very) few people > even seem to be using it! > > Sharing is via iTunes. Thanks for the tip! I see your description is "Use the Postscript(tm) language to express your ideas and see the results on your iPhone. Transfer your creations to your computer via iTunes sharing as either PNG or Postscript documents." It is likely that the reviewers considered that "Postscript documents" means a text file (like a .pdf or .doc). The user who gave you a bad review certainly did (another user corrected him/her). So this doesn't tell us what Apple would do with a language that allows you to share programs. David Harris wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:35:06 -0700 about Wolfram|Alpha mobile Thanks, but that is exactly what I was calling "just a terminal" and "a waste". -- Jecel ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
I just discovered that Wolfram|Alpha is available for the iPhone and iPad, as well as the Android and Nook, which use their Cloud computing. http://products.wolframalpha.com/mobile/ David On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: > ... I noticed that neither Matlab nor Mathematica are available for the > iPad, but only simple terminal apps that allow you to access these > applications running on your PC. What a waste! > > -- Jecel > > ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
On Mar 14, 2012, at 17:17 , Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: > Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:53:21 -0700 (PDT) >> No matter what Apple says, the reasons clearly stem from strategies and >> tactics >> of economic exclusion. >> So I agree with Max that the iPad at present is really the anti-Dynabook > > They have changed their position a little. I have a "Hand Basic" on my > iPhone which is compatible with the Commodore 64 Basic. I can write and > save programs, but can't send them to another device or load new > programs from the Internet. Except I can - there are applications for > the iPhone that give you access to the filing system and let you > exchange files with a PC or Mac. But that is beyond most users, which > seems to be a good enough barrier from Apple's viewpoint. I have a little Postscript interpreter/scratchpad in the AppStore (TouchScript, http://itunes.apple.com/en/app/touchscript/id398914579?mt=8 ). Admittedly, it was mostly a trial balloon to see if something like that would be accepted, and it was (2nd revision so far). And somewhat surprisingly a (very) few people even seem to be using it! Sharing is via iTunes. I think people generally overthink the grand-strategy/evil-overlord aspects of Apple's actions. Having spent time on the inside, it was always funny to see the interpretations in (particularly) the rumor mill of what were genuine screw-ups or "we don't know how to do it better" moments. Not saying that Apple can't be very evil, they sure can. In terms of apps, it seems to me that they went with a total lockdown model and have been gradually loosening. > > http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/ Very nice. > You can program on the iPad/iPhone, but can't share. Sharing via iTunes works with TouchScript. So far. Marcel ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
Hi Jecel The CRISP was too slow, and had other problems in its details. Sakoman liked it ... Bill Atkinson did Hypercard ... Larry made many other contributions at Xerox and Apple To me the Dynabook has always been 95% a "service model" and 5% physical specs (there were three main physical ideas for it, only one was the tablet). Cheers, Alan > > From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. >To: Fundamentals of New Computing >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:55 PM >Subject: Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA) > >Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT) >> Yep, I was there and trying to get the Newton project off the awful ATT chip >> they had first chosen. > >Interesting - a few months ago I studied the datasheets for the Hobbit >and read all the old CRISP papers and found this chip rather cute. It is >even more C centric than RISCs (specially the ARM) so might not be a >good choice for other languages. Another project that started out using >this and then had to switch (to the PowerPC) was the BeBox. In the link >I give below it says both projects were done by the same people (Jean >Louis Gassée and Steve Sakoman), so in a way it was really just one >project that used the chip. > >> Larry Tesler (who worked with us at PARC) finally wound up taking over this >> project and doing a number of much better things with it. > >He was also responsible for giving us Hypercard, right? > >> Overall what happened with Newton was too bad -- it could have been much >> better -- but there were many too many different opinions and power bases >> involved. > >This looks like a reasonable history of the Newton project (though some >parts that I know aren't quite right, so I can't guess how accurate the >parts I didn't know are): > >http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/john-sculley-newton-origin.html > >It doesn't mention NewtonScript nor Object Soups. I have never used it >myself, only read about it and seen some demos. But my impression is >that this was the closest thing we have had to the dynabook yet. > >> If you have a good version of confinement (which is pretty simple HW-wise) >> you >> can use Butler Lampson's schemes for Cal-TSS to make a workable version of a >> capability system. > >The 286 protected mode was good enough for this, and was extended in the >386. I am not sure all modern x86 processors still implement these, and >if they do it is likely that actually using them will hurt performance >so much that it isn't an option in practice. > >> And, yep, I managed to get them to allow interpreters to run on the iPad, >> but was >> not able to get Steve to countermand the "no sharing" rule. > >That is a pity, though at least having native languages makes these >devices a reasonable replacement for my old Radio Shack PC-4 calculator. >I noticed that neither Matlab nor Mathematica are available for the >iPad, but only simple terminal apps that allow you to access these >applications running on your PC. What a waste! > >-- Jecel > >___ >fonc mailing list >fonc@vpri.org >http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > >___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
On 2012-03-14, at 17:55, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." wrote: [...] > I noticed that neither Matlab nor Mathematica are available for the > iPad, but only simple terminal apps that allow you to access these > applications running on your PC. What a waste! > > -- Jecel Yep. Single most (and only) useful app on my iPad: iSSH. Mike ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:36:30 -0700 (PDT) > Yep, I was there and trying to get the Newton project off the awful ATT chip > they had first chosen. Interesting - a few months ago I studied the datasheets for the Hobbit and read all the old CRISP papers and found this chip rather cute. It is even more C centric than RISCs (specially the ARM) so might not be a good choice for other languages. Another project that started out using this and then had to switch (to the PowerPC) was the BeBox. In the link I give below it says both projects were done by the same people (Jean Louis Gassée and Steve Sakoman), so in a way it was really just one project that used the chip. > Larry Tesler (who worked with us at PARC) finally wound up taking over this > project and doing a number of much better things with it. He was also responsible for giving us Hypercard, right? > Overall what happened with Newton was too bad -- it could have been much > better -- but there were many too many different opinions and power bases > involved. This looks like a reasonable history of the Newton project (though some parts that I know aren't quite right, so I can't guess how accurate the parts I didn't know are): http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/john-sculley-newton-origin.html It doesn't mention NewtonScript nor Object Soups. I have never used it myself, only read about it and seen some demos. But my impression is that this was the closest thing we have had to the dynabook yet. > If you have a good version of confinement (which is pretty simple HW-wise) you > can use Butler Lampson's schemes for Cal-TSS to make a workable version of a > capability system. The 286 protected mode was good enough for this, and was extended in the 386. I am not sure all modern x86 processors still implement these, and if they do it is likely that actually using them will hurt performance so much that it isn't an option in practice. > And, yep, I managed to get them to allow interpreters to run on the iPad, but > was > not able to get Steve to countermand the "no sharing" rule. That is a pity, though at least having native languages makes these devices a reasonable replacement for my old Radio Shack PC-4 calculator. I noticed that neither Matlab nor Mathematica are available for the iPad, but only simple terminal apps that allow you to access these applications running on your PC. What a waste! -- Jecel ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
Yep, I was there and trying to get the Newton project off the awful ATT chip they had first chosen. Larry Tesler (who worked with us at PARC) finally wound up taking over this project and doing a number of much better things with it. Overall what happened with Newton was too bad -- it could have been much better -- but there were many too many different opinions and power bases involved. If you have a good version of confinement (which is pretty simple HW-wise) you can use Butler Lampson's schemes for Cal-TSS to make a workable version of a capability system. And, yep, I managed to get them to allow interpreters to run on the iPad, but was not able to get Steve to countermand the "no sharing" rule. Cheers, Alan > > From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr. >To: Fundamentals of New Computing >Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:17 AM >Subject: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA) > >Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:53:21 -0700 (PDT) >> A hardware vendor with huge volumes (like Apple) should be able to get a CPU >> vendor to make HW that offers real protection, and at a granularity that >> makes >> more systems sense. > >They did just that when they founded ARM Ltd (with Acorn and VTI): the >most significant change from the ARM3 to the ARM6 was a new MMU with a >more fine grained protection mechnism which was designed specially for >the Newton OS. No other system used it and though I haven't checked, I >wouldn't be surprised if this feature was eliminated from more recent >versions of ARM. > >Compared to a real capability system (like the Intel iAPX432/BiiN/960XA >or the IBM AS/400) it was a rather awkward solution, but at least they >did make an effort. > >Having been created under Scully, this technology did not survive Jobs' >return. > >> But the main point here is that there are no technical reasons why a child >> should >> be restricted from making an Etoys or Scratch project and sharing it with >> another >> child on an iPad. >> No matter what Apple says, the reasons clearly stem from strategies and >> tactics >> of economic exclusion. >> So I agree with Max that the iPad at present is really the anti-Dynabook > >They have changed their position a little. I have a "Hand Basic" on my >iPhone which is compatible with the Commodore 64 Basic. I can write and >save programs, but can't send them to another device or load new >programs from the Internet. Except I can - there are applications for >the iPhone that give you access to the filing system and let you >exchange files with a PC or Mac. But that is beyond most users, which >seems to be a good enough barrier from Apple's viewpoint. > >The same thing applies to this nice native development environment for >Lua on the iPad: > >http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/ > >You can program on the iPad/iPhone, but can't share. > >-- Jecel > >___ >fonc mailing list >fonc@vpri.org >http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > >___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
Jay Freeman has also released his Wraith Scheme for the iPad. On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote: > Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:53:21 -0700 (PDT) >> A hardware vendor with huge volumes (like Apple) should be able to get a CPU >> vendor to make HW that offers real protection, and at a granularity that >> makes >> more systems sense. > > They did just that when they founded ARM Ltd (with Acorn and VTI): the > most significant change from the ARM3 to the ARM6 was a new MMU with a > more fine grained protection mechnism which was designed specially for > the Newton OS. No other system used it and though I haven't checked, I > wouldn't be surprised if this feature was eliminated from more recent > versions of ARM. > > Compared to a real capability system (like the Intel iAPX432/BiiN/960XA > or the IBM AS/400) it was a rather awkward solution, but at least they > did make an effort. > > Having been created under Scully, this technology did not survive Jobs' > return. > >> But the main point here is that there are no technical reasons why a child >> should >> be restricted from making an Etoys or Scratch project and sharing it with >> another >> child on an iPad. >> No matter what Apple says, the reasons clearly stem from strategies and >> tactics >> of economic exclusion. >> So I agree with Max that the iPad at present is really the anti-Dynabook > > They have changed their position a little. I have a "Hand Basic" on my > iPhone which is compatible with the Commodore 64 Basic. I can write and > save programs, but can't send them to another device or load new > programs from the Internet. Except I can - there are applications for > the iPhone that give you access to the filing system and let you > exchange files with a PC or Mac. But that is beyond most users, which > seems to be a good enough barrier from Apple's viewpoint. > > The same thing applies to this nice native development environment for > Lua on the iPad: > > http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/ > > You can program on the iPad/iPhone, but can't share. > > -- Jecel > > ___ > 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] Apple and hardware (was: Error trying to compile COLA)
Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:53:21 -0700 (PDT) > A hardware vendor with huge volumes (like Apple) should be able to get a CPU > vendor to make HW that offers real protection, and at a granularity that makes > more systems sense. They did just that when they founded ARM Ltd (with Acorn and VTI): the most significant change from the ARM3 to the ARM6 was a new MMU with a more fine grained protection mechnism which was designed specially for the Newton OS. No other system used it and though I haven't checked, I wouldn't be surprised if this feature was eliminated from more recent versions of ARM. Compared to a real capability system (like the Intel iAPX432/BiiN/960XA or the IBM AS/400) it was a rather awkward solution, but at least they did make an effort. Having been created under Scully, this technology did not survive Jobs' return. > But the main point here is that there are no technical reasons why a child > should > be restricted from making an Etoys or Scratch project and sharing it with > another > child on an iPad. > No matter what Apple says, the reasons clearly stem from strategies and > tactics > of economic exclusion. > So I agree with Max that the iPad at present is really the anti-Dynabook They have changed their position a little. I have a "Hand Basic" on my iPhone which is compatible with the Commodore 64 Basic. I can write and save programs, but can't send them to another device or load new programs from the Internet. Except I can - there are applications for the iPhone that give you access to the filing system and let you exchange files with a PC or Mac. But that is beyond most users, which seems to be a good enough barrier from Apple's viewpoint. The same thing applies to this nice native development environment for Lua on the iPad: http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/ You can program on the iPad/iPhone, but can't share. -- Jecel ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
