water at tscnet.com
Mon Jan 8 18:29:26 UTC 2001
>Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
>>On Sun, 07 Jan 2001, J Osako wrote:
>>> At 15:54 01/07/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>> >Interesting. After the last rebuke, I came to the opposite conclusion -
>>> >that this list, being specifically about Self, should be primarily about
>>> >Self. It also occured to me that there might be a need for a general
>>> >discussion group on 'new' languages, Self-like or not. To this end, I have
>>> >created a new eGroups list, MFTL.
>>> In accordance with The Law of the Prophet Murphy, it was only after I set
>>> up MFTL that I learned that there already is an eGroups list for this sort
>>> of thing, called Language-Wars. Damn.
>>What does MFTL mean? Are you going to continue with this group or use
>>I agree that this shouldn't become a general language discussion list,
>>but while the traffic is still low I see no problems with some
>>information on Self-like languages being posted here. If someone feels
>>differently, please say so.
>Well, what I really think is that computer science is rather looking like
>a Babel Tower. When I joined the Workshop of the PHD students
>in OO programming at ECOOP'97, my colleagues were already
>feeling this phenomenon..Their proposal or at least of some
> there was that we should restrict the proliferation of new languages.
>No more languages...Of course I found and find this proposal
>However reading papers about reflection right now, I start feeling
>things are like Babel Tower. To read a single paper I have to know
>all about all types of patterns (architectural, design and so on)
>all about reflection(!!!), distributed systems, OO, media space
>and so on...Finally after a great effort I am managing to understand
>what this intriguing paper is about. And of course I still do not
>know which language will be used for implementation....
>Maybe there should be a list to try to integrate all these
>different computational trends.
>For example suddenly I discovered that a user interface is
>a virtual machine!!!!That the user can program the set of
>instructions of programmable processors and so on ...
>I do not go crazy because I am an architect and at least
>for the moment although I am dependent thoroughly on
>computer science, the integration of my knowledge based
>system can be accomplished at a design level before
>proceeding to implementation.
>ANyhow all this is very frustrating. I would appreciate
>more integrative approaches in computer science.
<PLUG TYPE="shameless"><A HREF="http://www.tunes.org">The TUNES
Seriously, this is what I am working on (Jecel also participates when
he can). The project is unfunded (I have even had to drop out of
school for a few years to avoid "brainwashing"), but a few people
(mostly Faré and I) have accomplished a lot of headway. Unfortunately
because we have no formal support from any institutions (at the
moment), our research efforts have been hampered by a perceived lack
of a precise plan.
Because of this, our mailing list has also over the years picked up a
lot of this Babel effect (I avoided it for years for this reason),
even as our goal is unification (be careful on how you interpret
I've said too much already.
More information about the Self-interest