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

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

-- Jecel

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: