Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [self-interest] Kansas and Tcl

Expand Messages
  • Albertina Lourenci
    Dear Selfers! I am curious if there are any relationship between Kansas and Tcl, both from Sun! Best wishes Albertina http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 4, 2004
      Dear Selfers!
      I am curious if there are any relationship
      between Kansas and Tcl, both from Sun!
      Best wishes
      Albertina
      http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
    • Randy Smith
      TCL already existed before John Osterhaut (spelling?) joined Sun, and while Tcl was here, there was very little mutual influence between the Self and TCL
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 4, 2004
        TCL already existed before John Osterhaut (spelling?) joined Sun, and
        while Tcl was here, there was very little mutual influence between the
        Self and TCL groups, since both were rather mature and conceptually far
        apart by the time.

        --Randy

        Albertina Lourenci wrote:
        > Dear Selfers!
        > I am curious if there are any relationship
        > between Kansas and Tcl, both from Sun!
        > Best wishes
        > Albertina
        > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Albertina Lourenci
        Randy Smith wrote: Hi Randy! John K. Ousterhout in IEEE Computer March 1998 writes: I am not aware of any rapid-development environments for GUIs based on a
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 5, 2004
           

          Randy Smith wrote:
          Hi Randy!
          John K. Ousterhout in IEEE Computer March 1998 writes:
          I am not aware of any rapid-development environments for
          GUIs based on a system programming language. Whether the
          environment is Windows, Macintosh Toolbox or Unix Motif
          GUI toolkits based on languages such as C or C++ have proven
          hard to learn, clumsy to use, and inflexible in the results
          'they produce.Some of these systems have nice graphical tools
          for designing screen layouts that hide the underlying language,
          but things become difficult as soon as the designer has to write
          code, for example to provide the behaviors for the interface elements.
          All of the best rapid development GUI environments are based
          on scripting languages: Visual Basic, HyperCard and Tcl/TK. page 28
           

          I would like you to comment on Self's GUI within the context
          put forward by Ousterhout. For him scripting languages deal
          with policy and system programming languages with mechanisms.
          He sees no problem in implementing scripting languages in
          programming languages of course. Indeed TCl is implemented
          in C. It may also be extended in C.

          Have a fun-filled, peaceful, creative weekend
          Albertina
          http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci

          TCL already existed before John Osterhaut (spelling?) joined Sun, and
          while Tcl was here, there was very little mutual influence between the
          Self and TCL groups, since both were rather mature and conceptually far
          apart by the time.

                  --Randy

          Albertina Lourenci wrote:
          > Dear Selfers!
          > I am curious if there are any relationship
          > between Kansas and Tcl, both from Sun!
          > Best wishes
          > Albertina
          > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
           

          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
               http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
           

        • Randy Smith
          Okay Albertina, I ll try to respond for you here: Self s GUI was never tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address the construction of stand
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 5, 2004
            Okay Albertina, I'll try to respond for you here: Self's GUI was never
            tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address the
            construction of stand alone, single apps. Rather we were exploring the
            sense of a world in which many applications could be created and
            recombined. Nevertheless, our hypothesis has always been that the
            difficulties Ousterhout observes (the problem of bridging the direct GUI
            environment with a general purpose programming language) can be
            addressed. There are difficulties of course, and deep issues such as the
            fact that direct GUI assembly and modification is a different
            environment than the textual environment of the language's code.

            Albertina Lourenci wrote:
            >
            >
            > Randy Smith wrote:
            > Hi Randy!
            > John K. Ousterhout in IEEE Computer March 1998 writes:
            > I am not aware of any rapid-development environments for
            > GUIs based on a system programming language. Whether the
            > environment is Windows, Macintosh Toolbox or Unix Motif
            > GUI toolkits based on languages such as C or C++ have proven
            > hard to learn, clumsy to use, and inflexible in the results
            > 'they produce.Some of these systems have nice graphical tools
            > for designing screen layouts that hide the underlying language,
            > but things become difficult as soon as the designer has to write
            > code, for example to provide the behaviors for the interface elements.
            > All of the best rapid development GUI environments are based
            > on scripting languages: Visual Basic, HyperCard and Tcl/TK. page 28
            >
            >
            > I would like you to comment on Self's GUI within the context
            > put forward by Ousterhout. For him scripting languages deal
            > with policy and system programming languages with mechanisms.
            > He sees no problem in implementing scripting languages in
            > programming languages of course. Indeed TCl is implemented
            > in C. It may also be extended in C.
            >
            > Have a fun-filled, peaceful, creative weekend
            > Albertina
            > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
            >
            >> TCL already existed before John Osterhaut (spelling?) joined Sun, and
            >> while Tcl was here, there was very little mutual influence between the
            >> Self and TCL groups, since both were rather mature and conceptually far
            >> apart by the time.
            >>
            >> --Randy
            >>
            >> Albertina Lourenci wrote:
            >> > Dear Selfers!
            >> > I am curious if there are any relationship
            >> > between Kansas and Tcl, both from Sun!
            >> > Best wishes
            >> > Albertina
            >> > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >
            >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >
            >>
            >>
            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
            >
            >
          • Albertina Lourenci
            Randy Smith wrote: Thanks Randy! Indeed in the same paper Ousterhout recognizes there are many interesting languages that cannot be characterized cleanly as a
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 5, 2004
               

              Randy Smith wrote:

              Thanks Randy! Indeed in the same paper Ousterhout recognizes
              there are many interesting languages that cannot be characterized
              cleanly as a system programming language or a scripting language.
              For example, the LISP family of languages lies somewhere between
              scripting and system programming with some of the attributes of each.

              LIsp pioneered concepts such as interpretation and dynamic typing
              that are now common in scripting languages, as well as automatic
              storage management and integrated development environments which
              are now used in both scripting  and system programming languages.
              Do you think Self plays the role of a programming and scripting language?
              I don''t have the book or have experienced with Tcl or Motif
              to check if indeed it deals with policy or strategy perfectly well.
              Indeed Agile Development Software Ecosystems try to do this.
              However they try to do this based on natural language! Something
              like Christopher Alexander does in his books A pattern language or
              The Nature of Order. Indeed the general theory of the sign from
              Peirce tries to overcome this difficulty. And the Greimasian semiotics
              unfolds the same concern in a more scientific way I believe.
              (My postdoctorate Scientific Report III deals with this - see my homepage -
              however I was shyly trying to unravel a morphodynamic level there)
              I have not gathered my recent conclusions about this in a report yet.
               

              Okay Albertina, I'll try to respond for you here: Self's GUI was never
              tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address the
              construction of stand alone, single apps. Rather we were exploring the
              sense of a world in which many applications could be created and
              recombined. Nevertheless, our hypothesis has always been that the
              difficulties Ousterhout observes (the problem of bridging the direct GUI
              environment with a general purpose programming language) can be
              addressed. There are difficulties of course, and deep issues such as the
              fact that direct GUI assembly and modification is a different
              environment than the textual environment of the language's code.
              See my main problem with graphical user interfaces is that
              they are based on Euclidean geometry. My algebraic-geometric modeling
              is based on symmetry groups of the plane and the dotless plane
              (similarity symmetry groups and conformal symmetry groups).
              And of course the underlying algebra is textual transformable
              into geometric groups. This is cool! Likewsise graph theory where
              we also have  planar graphs.
              Hence I would like to mimic this in a collaborative aware
              architecture. Of course the (hermeneutic = dialogue, chat, game) nature
              of the Self language matches
              my artistic needs. However I think there are too many things implicit
              in the programming environment.
              I know nothing about Motif but to pick up ready stuff sounds nasty.
              Of course Self (Kansas) tries to bridge the gap between programmers
              and language developers.
              One should strive to embed things in an infinitely  encompassing level of
              abstraction.I was successful to do this in my domain model as well
              as in my geometric modeling. Why not to pursue the same goals
              in architecture and programming code of my knowledge system to
              design and plan sustainable cities?
              Best wishes
              Albertina
              > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
               

              Albertina Lourenci wrote:
              >
              >
              > Randy Smith wrote:
              > Hi Randy!
              > John K. Ousterhout in IEEE Computer March 1998 writes:
              > I am not aware of any rapid-development environments for
              > GUIs based on a system programming language. Whether the
              > environment is Windows, Macintosh Toolbox or Unix Motif
              > GUI toolkits based on languages such as C or C++ have proven
              > hard to learn, clumsy to use, and inflexible in the results
              > 'they produce.Some of these systems have nice graphical tools
              > for designing screen layouts that hide the underlying language,
              > but things become difficult as soon as the designer has to write
              > code, for example to provide the behaviors for the interface elements.
              > All of the best rapid development GUI environments are based
              > on scripting languages: Visual Basic, HyperCard and Tcl/TK. page 28
              >
              >
              > I would like you to comment on Self's GUI within the context
              > put forward by Ousterhout. For him scripting languages deal
              > with policy and system programming languages with mechanisms.
              > He sees no problem in implementing scripting languages in
              > programming languages of course. Indeed TCl is implemented
              > in C. It may also be extended in C.
              >
              > Have a fun-filled, peaceful, creative weekend
              > Albertina
              > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
              >
              >> TCL already existed before John Osterhaut (spelling?) joined Sun, and
              >> while Tcl was here, there was very little mutual influence between the
              >> Self and TCL groups, since both were rather mature and conceptually far
              >> apart by the time.
              >>
              >>         --Randy
              >>
              >> Albertina Lourenci wrote:
              >> > Dear Selfers!
              >> > I am curious if there are any relationship
              >> > between Kansas and Tcl, both from Sun!
              >> > Best wishes
              >> > Albertina
              >> > http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >>
              >>
              >> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              >       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/
              >
              >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >       self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >       <mailto:self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
              >
              >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
              >
              >
               

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                   self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
               

            • Jecel Assumpcao Jr
              ... Just to reinforce this idea by saying the same thing in slightly different words: if you define as a basic parameter of your project that it will run as a
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 5, 2004
                On Friday 05 March 2004 15:56, Randy Smith wrote:
                > Okay Albertina, I'll try to respond for you here: Self's GUI was
                > never tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address
                > the construction of stand alone, single apps. Rather we were
                > exploring the sense of a world in which many applications could be
                > created and recombined.

                Just to reinforce this idea by saying the same thing in slightly
                different words: if you define as a basic parameter of your project
                that it will run as a "normal" application in some environment such as
                Windows XP, Mac OS X or X Window then you are automatically excluding
                tools which include their own environments (such as Self or Squeak)
                from consideration. All you have left are scripting languages and
                things like C++ and in that case the scripting languages do indeed look
                like the best option.

                This is exactly the case mentioned in another thread by Stefan Urbanek.
                One of his requirements is that the application must run in the Cocoa
                (NeXTStep/Mac OS X) environment. As Steve Dekorte pointed out, a simple
                scripting language like Io would more easily fit into this project.
                Note that there is nothing about the Self language itself that keeps us
                from creating a scripting version of it, just that only one person who
                has worked on Self so far has been interested in this (OpenSelf, but
                see my note at http://www.merlintec.com:8080/Self).

                > Nevertheless, our hypothesis has always been
                > that the difficulties Ousterhout observes (the problem of bridging
                > the direct GUI environment with a general purpose programming
                > language) can be addressed. There are difficulties of course, and
                > deep issues such as the fact that direct GUI assembly and
                > modification is a different environment than the textual environment
                > of the language's code.

                This is one of the main issues I am addressing in Neo Smalltalk. Note
                that unifying the two environments greatly simplified the language
                itself - there is no need for a syntax for literal objects if you have
                graphical ones (even for strings and numbers).

                -- Jecel
              • Albertina Lourenci
                Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote: Hi Jecel! ... I see your viewpoint. ... I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be different forms for the same
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 5, 2004
                   

                  Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                  Hi Jecel!

                  On Friday 05 March 2004 15:56, Randy Smith wrote:
                  > Okay Albertina, I'll try to respond for you here: Self's GUI was
                  > never tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address
                  > the construction of stand alone, single apps. Rather we were
                  > exploring the sense of a world in which many applications could be
                  > created and recombined.

                  Just to reinforce this idea by saying the same thing in slightly
                  different words: if you define as a basic parameter of your project
                  that it will run as a "normal" application in some environment such as
                  Windows XP, Mac OS X or X Window then you are automatically excluding
                  tools which include their own environments (such as Self or Squeak)
                  from consideration. All you have left are scripting languages and
                  things like C++ and in that case the scripting languages do indeed look
                  like the best option.

                  This is exactly the case mentioned in another thread by Stefan Urbanek.
                  One of his requirements is that the application must run in the Cocoa
                  (NeXTStep/Mac OS X) environment. As Steve Dekorte pointed out, a simple
                  scripting language like Io would more easily fit into this project.
                  Note that there is nothing about the Self language itself that keeps us
                  from creating a scripting version of it, just that only one person who
                  has worked on Self so far has been interested in this (OpenSelf, but
                  see my note at http://www.merlintec.com:8080/Self).

                  I see your viewpoint.
                   

                  > Nevertheless, our hypothesis has always been
                  > that the difficulties Ousterhout observes (the problem of bridging
                  > the direct GUI environment with a general purpose programming
                  > language) can be addressed. There are difficulties of course, and
                  > deep issues such as the fact that direct GUI assembly and
                  > modification is a different environment than the textual environment
                  > of the language's code.

                  This is one of the main issues I am addressing in Neo Smalltalk. Note
                  that unifying the two environments greatly simplified the language
                  itself - there is no need for a syntax for literal objects if you have
                  graphical ones (even for strings and numbers).

                  I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be
                  different forms for the same content. What's the problem
                  with this? For me the problem is when there is no correspondence
                  between the two different forms. This is exactly what happens
                  when one tries to map domain model and architecture into
                  programming languages. Indeed in the levels of the natural
                  language there is no such isomorphism because each level
                  plays a different role. However there are some structures
                  that might be isomorphic or that are traceable (I think
                  I make this neat in my paper and presentation  for ROOTS'02 (Bergen Norway)
                  from my homepage.
                  Best wishes
                  Albertina
                  http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
                   
                   

                  -- Jecel
                   

                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                       self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                       http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                   

                • Stefan Urbanek
                  ... Just to add a note to this... Self does not have any working GUI/app framework that would be sufficient for creating an usable application. And as I see
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 6, 2004
                    On 2004-03-05 22:06:07 +0100 Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel@...> wrote:

                    > On Friday 05 March 2004 15:56, Randy Smith wrote:
                    >> Okay Albertina, I'll try to respond for you here: Self's GUI was
                    >> never tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address
                    >> the construction of stand alone, single apps. Rather we were
                    >> exploring the sense of a world in which many applications could be
                    >> created and recombined.
                    >
                    > Just to reinforce this idea by saying the same thing in slightly different
                    > words: if you define as a basic parameter of your project that it will run as
                    > a "normal" application in some environment such as Windows XP, Mac OS X or X
                    > Window then you are automatically excluding tools which include their own
                    > environments (such as Self or Squeak) from consideration. All you have left
                    > are scripting languages and things like C++ and in that case the scripting
                    > languages do indeed look like the best option.
                    >
                    > This is exactly the case mentioned in another thread by Stefan Urbanek. One
                    > of his requirements is that the application must run in the Cocoa
                    > (NeXTStep/Mac OS X) environment. As Steve Dekorte pointed out, a simple
                    > scripting language like Io would more easily fit into this project. Note that
                    > there is nothing about the Self language itself that keeps us from creating a
                    > scripting version of it, just that only one person who has worked on Self so
                    > far has been interested in this (OpenSelf, but see my note at
                    > http://www.merlintec.com:8080/Self).
                    >

                    Just to add a note to this... Self does not have any working GUI/app framework that would be sufficient for creating an usable application. And as I see it, Self will not have it in near future. What Self has, is a great computational mechanism and different view on how to "model a problem". Ant there is the power of Self. Yecel named it "scripting", others can name it "integration" - with that both sides can gain. Application developers will get powerful computational engine and Self will finally get users (developers, testers, ...).

                    The advantage of Self is not only "scripting". I think of scripts as of some small pieces of code for automation or customisation. The advantage is, as I have mentioned before, the different computational model and well tested, fast runtime. Those are features that no other (or very few) scripting languages/environments offer. This moves Self to another, higher level, where one can use it not only for small pieces of code. One can use it for larger (user customisable) parts of an application. There are lots problems that can be solved in Self much more easier than in C/C++/ObjectiveC.

                    How I see it? Application using one or more Self environments. Ok, now I let my imagination go... What about stadard application as a frontend to a distributed self environments on different machines? It's just an example, but you get the idea where it should go...

                    I am not a Self developer, I come from another world and I am just saying how I see it from the outside. I think that a fight for a user environment is lost at this time, what can be won is a battle for exceptional computational environment/engine.

                    Stefan Urbanek
                    --
                    http://stefan.agentfarms.net

                    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
                    - Mahatma Gandhi
                  • Albertina Lourenci
                    Stefan Urbanek wrote: Dear Stefan! See below! ... Scripting languages and system programming languages are complementary, and most major computing platforms
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 6, 2004
                       

                      Stefan Urbanek wrote:
                      Dear Stefan!
                      See below!

                      On 2004-03-05 22:06:07 +0100 Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel@...> wrote:

                      > On Friday 05 March 2004 15:56, Randy Smith wrote:
                      >> Okay Albertina, I'll try to respond for you here: Self's GUI was
                      >> never tuned to being like Motif or being fully brought up to address
                      >> the construction of stand alone, single apps. Rather we were
                      >> exploring the sense of a world in which many applications could be
                      >> created and recombined.
                      >
                      > Just to reinforce this idea by saying the same thing in slightly different
                      > words: if you define as a basic parameter of your project that it will run as
                      > a "normal" application in some environment such as Windows XP, Mac OS X or X
                      > Window then you are automatically excluding tools which include their own
                      > environments (such as Self or Squeak) from consideration. All you have left
                      > are scripting languages and things like C++ and in that case the scripting
                      > languages do indeed look like the best option.
                      >
                      > This is exactly the case mentioned in another thread by Stefan Urbanek. One
                      > of his requirements is that the application must run in the Cocoa
                      > (NeXTStep/Mac OS X) environment. As Steve Dekorte pointed out, a simple
                      > scripting language like Io would more easily fit into this project. Note that
                      > there is nothing about the Self language itself that keeps us from creating a
                      > scripting version of it, just that only one person who has worked on Self so
                      > far has been interested in this (OpenSelf, but see my note at
                      > http://www.merlintec.com:8080/Self).
                      >

                      Just to add a note to this... Self does not have any working GUI/app framework that would be sufficient for creating an usable application. And as I see it, Self will not have it in near future. What Self has, is a great computational mechanism and different view on how to "model a problem". Ant there is the power of Self. Yecel named it "scripting", others can name it "integration" - with that both sides can gain. Application developers will get powerful computational engine and Self will finally get users (developers, testers, ...).

                      The advantage of Self is not only "scripting". I think of scripts as of some small pieces of code for automation or customisation. Well Ousterhout thinks of scripting languages as designed for gluing. They assume the existence of a set of powerful components and are intended  primarily for connecting components.System programming languages are strongly typed to help manage complexity while scripting languages are typeless to simplify connections among components and provide rapid application development. in IEEE computer march 1998.

                      Scripting languages and system programming languages are complementary, and most major computing platforms since the 1960s have included both kinds of languages. The languages are typically used together in component frameworks, where components are created with system programming languages and glued together with scripting languages.

                      In his PHD thesis Software-architeckturen für die rahmenwerkbasierte Konstruktion grosser Anwendungssysteme (Arquiteturas de software baseadas em framework para a construção de grandes sistemas de aplicações) that is an Umberto Eco's semiotics application the connectors are the design patterns! These are also small pieces of code for customisation. Hence what's the difference between
                      design patterns and scripts?
                       
                       

                      The advantage is, as I have mentioned before, the different computational model and well tested, fast runtime. Those are features that no other (or very few) scripting languages/environments offer. This moves Self to another, higher level, where one can use it not only for small pieces of code. One can use it for larger (user customisable) parts of an application. There are lots problems that can be solved in Self much more easier than in C/C++/ObjectiveC.
                      I believe nobody has doubts about Self's power of expressiveness.
                       

                      How I see it? Application using one or more Self environments. Ok, now I let my imagination go... What about stadard application as a frontend to a distributed self environments on different machines?

                      This sounds great. Distributed Self environments on different machines as the basis of a collaborative architecture. Something
                      like OpenCroquet (Alan Kay and so on) intends to offer to develop applications written in Squeak?:-)!
                      It's just an example, but you get the idea where it should go...

                      I am not a Self developer, I come from another world and I am just saying how I see it from the outside. I think that a fight for a user environment is lost at this time, what can be won is a battle for exceptional computational environment/engine.
                       

                      Best wishes
                      Albertina
                      http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
                       
                      Stefan Urbanek
                      --
                      http://stefan.agentfarms.net

                      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
                      - Mahatma Gandhi
                       

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                           self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                           http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                       

                    • Steve Dekorte
                      ... This link appears to be broken. I think might really help in getting people to try and use Self if: - when you download Self on OSX, it would be one file
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 6, 2004
                        On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                        > Note that there is nothing about the Self language itself that keeps us
                        > from creating a scripting version of it, just that only one person who
                        > has worked on Self so far has been interested in this (OpenSelf, but
                        > see my note at http://www.merlintec.com:8080/Self).

                        This link appears to be broken.

                        I think might really help in getting people to try and use Self if:

                        - when you download Self on OSX, it would be one file (a .app wrapper)
                        and you could simply double click on it to start Self. (no messing with
                        environment variables, etc.)

                        - there was a command line version that accepted script files and can
                        be used for writing web scripts (yes, the web is a crummy UI - but it's
                        useful)

                        - these features would be supported by the maintainers of Self
                        directly, so users have confidence that they will continue to be
                        supported

                        Just suggestions,
                        -- Steve
                      • Stefan Urbanek
                        Albertina, ... ... Well ... nobody here has doubts. You know about the power, people on this list know, I do and perhaps very-very few others, but that
                        Message 11 of 18 , Mar 7, 2004
                          Albertina,

                          On 2004-03-06 10:57:42 +0100 Albertina Lourenci <lourenci@...> wrote:

                          >
                          >
                          > Stefan Urbanek wrote:
                          > Dear Stefan!
                          > See below!
                          >
                          >> On 2004-03-05 22:06:07 +0100 Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel@...> wrote:
                          >>

                          <snip>

                          >>
                          >> The advantage is, as I have mentioned before, the different computational
                          >> model and well tested, fast runtime. Those are features that no other (or
                          >> very few) scripting languages/environments offer. This moves Self to
                          >> another, higher level, where one can use it not only for small pieces of
                          >> code. One can use it for larger (user customisable) parts of an
                          >> application. There are lots problems that can be solved in Self much more
                          >> easier than in C/C++/ObjectiveC.
                          >
                          > I believe nobody has doubts about Self's power of expressiveness.
                          >

                          Well ... nobody here has doubts. You know about the power, people on this list know, I do and perhaps very-very few others, but that is all. In fact, Self does not exists. I'll move a bit offtopic, but ... if current developers of self will retire, Self will retire with them. And that would be pity.

                          >>
                          >>
                          >> How I see it? Application using one or more Self environments. Ok, now I
                          >> let my imagination go... What about stadard application as a frontend to a
                          >> distributed self environments on different machines?
                          >
                          > This sounds great. Distributed Self environments on different machines as the
                          > basis of a collaborative architecture. Something
                          > like OpenCroquet (Alan Kay and so on) intends to offer to develop
                          > applications written in Squeak?:-)!
                          >

                          Yes, and it is not too difficult to create something with OpenCroquet idea. Different from Squeak implementation there is one, perhaps not very nice analogy:

                          There is: WWW (passive) worlds + web browser
                          There can be: Self (active) worlds + not-yet-written user (non-self) interface application.

                          If environment-native application (with environment-native visualising graphical tools) was used as an entrance or window to Self worlds, then it can be easily adaptable for potential users. And I think that it would be much more easier to introduce native app than to introduce something totally new.

                          Just imagine what everything can be done with those "living selfish worlds"... :-)

                          Best regards,

                          Stefan Urbanek
                          --
                          http://stefan.agentfarms.net

                          First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
                          - Mahatma Gandhi
                        • Albertina Lourenci
                          Stefan Urbanek wrote: Hi Stef! ... to design and plan sustainable cities. Many interesting applications will stop because computer science is still crawling!
                          Message 12 of 18 , Mar 7, 2004
                             

                            Stefan Urbanek wrote:
                            Hi Stef!

                            Albertina,

                            On 2004-03-06 10:57:42 +0100 Albertina Lourenci <lourenci@...> wrote:

                            >
                            >
                            > Stefan Urbanek wrote:
                            > Dear Stefan!
                            > See below!
                            >
                            >> On 2004-03-05 22:06:07 +0100 Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel@...> wrote:
                            >>

                            <snip>

                            >>
                            >> The advantage is, as I have mentioned before, the different computational
                            >> model and well tested, fast runtime. Those are features that no other (or
                            >> very few) scripting languages/environments offer. This moves Self to
                            >> another, higher level, where one can use it not only for small pieces of
                            >> code. One can use it for larger (user customisable) parts of an
                            >> application. There are lots problems that can be solved in Self much more
                            >> easier than in C/C++/ObjectiveC.
                            >
                            > I believe nobody has doubts about Self's power of expressiveness.
                            >

                            Well ... nobody here has doubts. You know about the power, people on this list know, I do and perhaps very-very few others, but that is all. In fact, Self does not exists. I'll move a bit offtopic, but ... if current developers of self will retire, Self will retire with them. And that would be pity.
                            Sure! When they die the world will not be better and they will die without memory! I am running the same risk with my modeling

                            to design and plan sustainable cities.
                            Many interesting applications will stop because computer science is still crawling!
                             
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> How I see it? Application using one or more Self environments. Ok, now I
                            >> let my imagination go... What about stadard application as a frontend to a
                            >> distributed self environments on different machines?
                            >
                            > This sounds great. Distributed Self environments on different machines as the
                            > basis of a collaborative architecture. Something
                            > like OpenCroquet (Alan Kay and so on) intends to offer to develop
                            > applications written in Squeak?:-)!
                            >

                            Yes, and it is not too difficult to create something with OpenCroquet idea.

                            Here where  I am Internet 2 is already a reality. Hence we could run
                            OpenCroquet when there will be a working version available and
                            work collaboratively with researchers in American universities.
                            Different from Squeak implementation there is one, perhaps not very nice analogy:

                            There is: WWW (passive) worlds +  web browser
                            There can be: Self (active) worlds + not-yet-written user (non-self) interface application.
                            Something like OpenCroquet in (SelfCroquet :-)!) sounds wonderful!

                             
                            If environment-native application (with environment-native visualising graphical tools) was used as an entrance or window to Self worlds, then it can be easily adaptable for potential users. And I think that it would be much more easier to introduce native app than to introduce something totally new.

                            Just imagine what everything can be done with those "living selfish worlds"... :-)
                            It is up to us  that tune to "living selfish worlds" to accomplish them :-)!

                            Ciao
                            Albertina
                            http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci
                             
                            Best regards,

                            Stefan Urbanek
                            --
                            http://stefan.agentfarms.net

                            First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
                            - Mahatma Gandhi
                             

                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

                            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                 self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                             

                          • Jecel Assumpcao Jr
                            ... The problem is that there are two contexts, with some forms used in one and others used in the other. That makes programming more awkward than it should
                            Message 13 of 18 , Mar 12, 2004
                              On Friday 05 March 2004 19:45, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
                              > Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                              > > This is one of the main issues I am addressing in Neo Smalltalk.
                              > > Note that unifying the two environments greatly simplified the
                              > > language itself - there is no need for a syntax for literal objects
                              > > if you have graphical ones (even for strings and numbers).
                              >
                              > I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be
                              > different forms for the same content. What's the problem
                              > with this?

                              The problem is that there are two contexts, with some forms used in one
                              and others used in the other. That makes programming more awkward than
                              it should be.

                              When you are in the textual programming context and you need to refer to
                              an object, you can:

                              1) just use the literal syntax of the language to describe it, if it is
                              one of the few kinds of objects for which that is available - 23,
                              'hello world', [|:i| i + 1], (| answer <- 7 |)

                              2) create the object by sending a message to a literal, if that is
                              relatively simple and fast for this kind of object - 4@7, ('a' & 'e' &
                              'i') asSet

                              3) create the object in some initialization code and store it in a
                              variable which other code can "see" - look at the methods which create
                              the little buttons for the outliners for an example

                              Besides these traditional options, in Self we can also:

                              4) create the object using any tools provided by the system, call up
                              its outliner from the blue menu, create a slot pointing to () or 0 or
                              anything like that in the object you are writing the method for, drag
                              the arrow from the new slot to point to the outliner. Now you can
                              reference the slot name in the method.

                              This is the first real step of allowing me to use the graphical
                              representation from the textual programming context. A fine first step,
                              but what things can't we do even now?

                              5) put any object in the middle of some code, not just the few literal
                              kinds

                              6) name the objects in the graphical context (see Visual Basic) and use
                              these names in the method text

                              Having all this would make programming far nicer, in my opinion.

                              > For me the problem is when there is no correspondence
                              > between the two different forms. This is exactly what happens
                              > when one tries to map domain model and architecture into
                              > programming languages.

                              There is always a correspondence between any forms, but often it isn't
                              very convenient. For us, I mean - the computer doesn't care since
                              everything is just bits to it.

                              > Indeed in the levels of the natural
                              > language there is no such isomorphism because each level
                              > plays a different role. However there are some structures
                              > that might be isomorphic or that are traceable (I think
                              > I make this neat in my paper and presentation for ROOTS'02 (Bergen
                              > Norway) from my homepage.

                              I didn't find any examples in the presentation, only explanations of
                              several different philosophical theories.

                              -- Jecel
                            • Albertina Lourenci
                              Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote: Dear Jecel! ... Is the main difference between syntax for literal and graphical objects that the latter is interactive? ... I put
                              Message 14 of 18 , Mar 13, 2004
                                 

                                Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                                Dear Jecel!

                                On Friday 05 March 2004 19:45, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
                                > Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                                > > This is one of the main issues I am addressing in Neo Smalltalk.
                                > > Note that unifying the two environments greatly simplified the
                                > > language itself - there is no need for a syntax for literal objects
                                > > if you have graphical ones (even for strings and numbers).
                                >
                                > I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be
                                > different forms for the same content. What's the problem
                                > with this?
                                 
                                 
                                The problem is that there are two contexts, with some forms used in one
                                and others used in the other. That makes programming more awkward than
                                it should be.
                                 
                                Is the main difference between syntax for  literal and graphical objects that the latter is
                                interactive?
                                 
                                When you are in the textual programming context and you need to refer to
                                an object, you can:

                                 1) just use the literal syntax of the language to describe it, if it is
                                one of the few kinds of objects for which that is available - 23,
                                'hello world', [|:i| i + 1], (| answer <- 7 |)

                                 2) create the object by sending a message to a literal, if that is
                                relatively simple and fast for this kind of object - 4@7, ('a' & 'e' &
                                'i') asSet

                                 3) create the object in some initialization code and store it in a
                                variable which other code can "see" - look at the methods which create
                                the little buttons for the outliners for an example

                                Besides these traditional options, in Self we can also:

                                 4) create the object using any tools provided by the system, call up
                                its outliner from the blue menu, create a slot pointing to () or 0 or
                                anything like that in the object you are writing the method for, drag
                                the arrow from the new slot to point to the outliner. Now you can
                                reference the slot name in the method.

                                This is the first real step of allowing me to use the graphical
                                representation from the textual programming context. A fine first step,
                                but what things can't we do even now?

                                 5) put any object in the middle of some code, not just the few literal
                                kinds

                                 6) name the objects in the graphical context (see Visual Basic) and use
                                these names in the method text

                                Having all this would make programming far nicer, in my opinion.

                                > For me the problem is when there is no correspondence
                                > between the two different forms. This is exactly what happens
                                > when one tries to map domain model and architecture into
                                > programming languages.

                                There is always a correspondence between any forms, but often it isn't
                                very convenient. For us, I mean - the computer doesn't care since
                                everything is just bits to it.

                                > Indeed in the levels of the natural
                                > language there is no such isomorphism because each level
                                > plays a different role. However there are some structures
                                > that might be isomorphic or that are traceable (I think
                                > I make this neat in my paper and presentation  for ROOTS'02 (Bergen
                                > Norway) from my homepage.

                                I didn't find any examples in the presentation, only explanations of
                                several different philosophical theories.

                                I put forward clearly in my papers that the software architecture
                                is the place of discourse and communication.
                                The place of a collaborative architecture.Of course it matters
                                if this is bidimensional or tridimensional.
                                If it is bidimensional one cannot see the stakeholders in
                                three dimensions.
                                However I realize one can trace perfectly well the three-dimension
                                into the banners in bidimensional collaborative software architecture
                                like in Kansas.
                                Of course if one adds contextual information in the three dimensional
                                architecture there is no real traceability between bi and three-dimensional.
                                The three dimensional collaborative architecture is not isomorphic
                                to the bidimensional architecture.

                                This is a far cry from the domain model. Traceability is achieved
                                of course because necessarily the components of the domain
                                model are part of the software architecture and of course
                                they must be implemented.
                                I mean each level has a different nature and I explain this
                                clearly for natural language.
                                Many thanks for your detailed explanation above however
                                it is not clear if  syntax for literal and graphical objects are
                                isomorphic.

                                Best wishes
                                Albertina
                                 
                                 

                                 

                                -- Jecel
                                 

                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

                                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                     self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                 

                              • Jecel Assumpcao Jr
                                ... The main difference is that, in existing systems, they are used in different places. The graphical object normally (but not always) is interactive while we
                                Message 15 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
                                  On Saturday 13 March 2004 15:12, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
                                  > Is the main difference between syntax for literal and graphical
                                  > objects that the latter is interactive?

                                  The main difference is that, in existing systems, they are used in
                                  different places. The graphical object normally (but not always) is
                                  interactive while we don't think of the textual syntax as such.

                                  Let us imagine we want to have architectural objects in a Self-like
                                  language. One such object is a wall, and we could invent a special
                                  syntax for it so we could write

                                  w1: <.5,0>=<0,0>=<0,7>=<7,7>=<7,6.5>

                                  to describe a wall with the standard height and width which starts at
                                  coordinates x=0.5 and y=0.0 and then passes through three intermediate
                                  points before ending at x=7.0 and y=6.5.

                                  Instead of doing this, we could define the '===' message for points and
                                  walls in regular Self and write

                                  w1: (0.5@0)===(0@0)===(0@7)===(7@7)===(7@6.5)

                                  using only the literal syntax for numbers and the '@' and '===' messages
                                  to build the same wall object as in the previous example. The problem
                                  with this is that it takes a little while to build this wall from the
                                  10 numbers and so we don't want to do this every time a popular method
                                  is executed.

                                  To show a graphical version of this same wall object I would have to
                                  attach a picture to this email, so I will let you just imagine we did
                                  it with the sketchMorph we created for your thesis. You can change the
                                  wall after it was created since the sketchMorph is a graphical editor,
                                  but you can also edit the text for the two version of the example I
                                  gave above. The first, of course, can be done while the program is
                                  running while the latter while the program is being created. That makes
                                  a difference for languages like C, but not for Self.

                                  Even though the three versions of the wall object are equivalent in
                                  theory, in practice it is more fun to deal with the graphical version.

                                  > I put forward clearly in my papers that the software architecture
                                  > is the place of discourse and communication.

                                  I was hoping for a simple and concrete example like I gave above.

                                  -- Jecel
                                • Albertina Lourenci
                                  Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote: Hi Jecel! ... Of course for graphical designers this makes no sense! What I understand by graphical syntax is something like the GUI,
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
                                     

                                    Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                                    Hi Jecel!

                                    On Saturday 13 March 2004 15:12, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
                                    > Is the main difference between syntax for  literal and graphical
                                    > objects that the latter is interactive?

                                    The main difference is that, in existing systems, they are used in
                                    different places. The graphical object normally (but not always) is
                                    interactive while we don't think of the textual syntax as such.

                                    Let us imagine we want to have architectural objects in a Self-like
                                    language. One such object is a wall, and we could invent a special
                                    syntax for it so we could write

                                     w1: <.5,0>=<0,0>=<0,7>=<7,7>=<7,6.5>

                                    to describe a wall with the standard height and width which starts at
                                    coordinates x=0.5 and y=0.0 and then passes through three intermediate
                                    points before ending at x=7.0 and y=6.5.
                                    Well,  in this case we have no graphical wall!

                                    Of course for graphical designers this makes no sense!
                                    What I understand by graphical syntax is something like
                                    the GUI, the outliner and so on! In this case you also
                                    have true graphical objects.
                                    Hence the difference is not it is only interactive. Indeed
                                    it has different functionality from the literal syntax.
                                    It is something like three dimensional collaborative
                                    architecture and bidimensional collaborative architecture.
                                     
                                     
                                    Instead of doing this, we could define the '===' message for points and
                                    walls in regular Self and write

                                     w1: (0.5@0)===(0@0)===(0@7)===(7@7)===(7@6.5)

                                    using only the literal syntax for numbers and the '@' and '===' messages
                                    to build the same wall object as in the previous example. The problem
                                    with this is that it takes a little while to build this wall from the
                                    10 numbers and so we don't want to do this every time a popular method
                                    is executed.

                                    To show a graphical version of this same wall object I would have to
                                    attach a picture to this email, so I will let you just imagine we did
                                    it with the sketchMorph we created for your thesis. You can change the
                                    wall after it was created since the sketchMorph is a graphical editor,
                                    but you can also edit the text for the two version of the example I
                                    gave above. The first, of course, can be done while the program is
                                    running while the latter while the program is being created. That makes
                                    a difference for languages like C, but not for Self.

                                    Even though the three versions of the wall object are equivalent in
                                    theory, in practice it is more fun to deal with the graphical version.

                                    I see no equivalence! Only if you make a reductionist effort or
                                    a rough mapping from one to the other. For a designer this makes
                                    no sense!
                                     

                                    > I put forward clearly in my papers that the software architecture
                                    > is the place of discourse and communication.

                                    I was hoping for a simple and concrete example like I gave above.

                                    I could give the example in terms of the subgroup relationships of the
                                    crystallographic groups where everybody becomes a designer and
                                    a "philosopher"!!:-)!
                                    Thank you!
                                    Best wishes
                                    Albertina
                                     

                                    -- Jecel
                                     

                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

                                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                         self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                         http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                     

                                  • Jecel Assumpcao Jr
                                    ... It is an example of a textual notation, not a graphical one. ... My point exactly. ... I am typing this in an application running in a GUI, yet can t use
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Mar 15, 2004
                                      On Monday 15 March 2004 19:32, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
                                      > Well, in this case we have no graphical wall!

                                      It is an example of a textual notation, not a graphical one.

                                      > Of course for graphical designers this makes no sense!

                                      My point exactly.

                                      > What I understand by graphical syntax is something like
                                      > the GUI, the outliner and so on! In this case you also
                                      > have true graphical objects.

                                      I am typing this in an application running in a GUI, yet can't use it to
                                      send you an example of a graphical notation. The outliner only allows
                                      you to type text in it to define a method, even though it is a very
                                      nice graphical notation of an object.

                                      > Hence the difference is not it is only interactive. Indeed
                                      > it has different functionality from the literal syntax.
                                      > It is something like three dimensional collaborative
                                      > architecture and bidimensional collaborative architecture.

                                      Right.


                                      > > Even though the three versions of the wall object are equivalent in
                                      > > theory, in practice it is more fun to deal with the graphical
                                      > > version.
                                      >
                                      > I see no equivalence! Only if you make a reductionist effort or
                                      > a rough mapping from one to the other. For a designer this makes
                                      > no sense!

                                      It is not a rough mapping - it is an exact mapping which an automatic
                                      tool can use to translate from one notation to the other.

                                      But you are the one who said:

                                      # I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be different
                                      # forms for the same content. What's the problem with this? For me the
                                      # problem is when there is no correspondence between the two different
                                      # forms. This is exactly what happens when one tries to map domain model
                                      # and architecture into programming languages.

                                      I showed you three different forms for the same content, and hope you
                                      now see the problem with this. In practice, some forms are more
                                      convenient than others.

                                      -- Jecel
                                    • Albertina Lourenci
                                      Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote: Hi Jecel! ... And this confirms my viewpoints there is no one-to-one mapping. Different functionalities are involved. ... I see! It
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Mar 16, 2004
                                         

                                        Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
                                        Hi Jecel!

                                        On Monday 15 March 2004 19:32, Albertina Lourenci wrote:
                                        > Well,  in this case we have no graphical wall!

                                        It is an example of a textual notation, not a graphical one.

                                        > Of course for graphical designers this makes no sense!

                                        My point exactly.

                                        > What I understand by graphical syntax is something like
                                        > the GUI, the outliner and so on! In this case you also
                                        > have true graphical objects.

                                        I am typing this in an application running in a GUI, yet can't use it to
                                        send you an example of a graphical notation. The outliner only allows
                                        you to type text in it to define a method, even though it is a very
                                        nice graphical notation of an object.

                                        > Hence the difference is not it is only interactive. Indeed
                                        > it has different functionality from the literal syntax.
                                        > It is something like three dimensional collaborative
                                        > architecture and bidimensional collaborative architecture.

                                        Right.

                                        And this confirms my viewpoints there is no one-to-one
                                        mapping. Different functionalities are involved.
                                         

                                        > > Even though the three versions of the wall object are equivalent in
                                        > > theory, in practice it is more fun to deal with the graphical
                                        > > version.
                                        >
                                        > I see no equivalence! Only if you make a reductionist effort or
                                        > a rough mapping from one to the other. For a designer this makes
                                        > no sense!

                                         

                                        It is not a rough mapping - it is an exact mapping which an automatic
                                        tool can use to translate from one notation to the other.

                                        I see! It is like free-hand sketch and then technical drawing!
                                         

                                        But you are the one who said:

                                        # I miss the point here. Semiotically speaking there may be different
                                        # forms for the same content. What's the problem with this? For me the
                                        # problem is when there is no correspondence between the two different
                                        # forms. This is exactly what happens when one tries to map domain model
                                        # and architecture into programming languages.

                                        Sure! I believe the conundrum might be solved if one builds programming
                                        languages inspired by what happens in domain model and architectures.
                                        And yet the programming language has its own development!
                                         

                                        I showed you three different forms for the same content, and hope you
                                        now see the problem with this. In practice, some forms are more
                                        convenient than others.

                                        I see. Thank you for the detailed explanation.
                                        Best wishes
                                        Albertina
                                         

                                        -- Jecel
                                         

                                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                             http://groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/

                                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                             self-interest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                             http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                         

                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.