Post #61,842
11/8/02 10:04:56 AM
8/21/07 5:51:40 AM
|

The Future
I'd say an awful lot of innovation continues to come out of the Smalltalk community. Alan Kay has just announced an alpha of an environment called Croquet. Its sort of a return to first principles. The original Smalltalk idea has a sort of fractal notion of objects as servers - which is why Smalltalk uses "messages" rather than functions like Java or C++.
The Croqueteers have taken this to a new extreme in Croquet. You can see what they've wrought if you have Windows (other versions are coming but there is some OpenGL support that needs cleaning up in the VMs). This is written in Smalltalk (Squeak) on top of Morphic and it is a rather amazing demo.
At the very least the paper is a good read:
[link|http://www.opencroquet.org|http://www.opencroquet.org]
The server is slow. I'd start with the paper and see if you want to proceed. Also, a warning that the pdf is somewhat broken and only readable in acrobat. Also, if running the demo, read the docs - the window with the url that comes up first wants a "cancel". This is still very alpha. But its cool.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #61,851
11/8/02 10:31:49 AM
|

Re: The Future
"fractal notion of objects as servers..."
What does this mean?
I'm working with an idea of documents as servers. You send them messages and they do whatever you want - mail themselves, collect themselves in a particular place, whatever. Each document would have an attached agent. How much of the agent needs to be local is the main problem.
-drl
|
Post #61,854
11/8/02 10:38:20 AM
8/21/07 5:51:44 AM
|

Fractal
Basically - the idea is that every object is a tiny server. I think this isn't strictly true for objects that represent values - strings and numbers - but if you read the paper, they take the idea that any object can be messaged anywhere. The fractal bit is that most object methods are written in terms of messaging other objects which are also little servers. Scale it up and you have what amounts to ubiquitous networking.
They start with new assumptions including:
1) The world is filled with fat pipes 2) Graphics power is nearly unlimited
Read the paper. Its quite good - especially the appendix by Alan Kay.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #61,870
11/8/02 11:55:51 AM
|

Re: Fractal
"I think this isn't strictly true for objects that represent values - strings and numbers.."
Well, why not? They could have NOP servers with a atomic repsonse like "yes, I exist here". One would need an idea of non-existence.
This seems close to my crazy idea of documents with network addresses.
-drl
|
Post #61,862
11/8/02 11:26:39 AM
|

First, an LRPDsm candidate
>>>>>>>>>>> The TeapotMorph will be replaced with a more robust and simpler method for creating worlds. <<<<<<<<<<<
And, so far all I see is OO 3-D modeling environment. However, most people use computers to produce and consume texts. How is that made simpler/easier/nicer by 3D everywhere?
--
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #61,864
11/8/02 11:33:01 AM
|

Aha! Beginning to see...
never post a recation before finishing the document! *Smack*
--
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #61,883
11/8/02 12:52:47 PM
|

Totally self-contained objects...
I can't even begin to imagine what sort of CPU/network power it is going to take. Certainly things that we have today are not sufficient.
Cease to think in terms of objects driving one another. Start thinnking about them as really independent actors. Very hard to switch.
Word processor, for example...
A letter, a word, a phrase a paragraph. A word knows to show itself in red when it's not in dictionary. But, does the word show itself? Or do letters show themselves? Or do we somehow implement both at once? With a third party to judge between them? How is it going to work? I can't even see it conceptually.
--
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #61,888
11/8/02 1:13:16 PM
|

Re: Totally self-contained objects...
Hazarding a guess... the word is, by sending a message to each letter to make itself red.
--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Laval Qu\ufffdbec Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #61,892
11/8/02 1:57:12 PM
|

Re: Totally self-contained objects...
Why would a letter care to rmrmber redness? This is the old way.
I am thinking more of a red tinted-glass filter that word puts up when it's misspelled. So the letters can draw themselves any way they please, and the user would still see a cue.
--
We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
|
Post #61,911
11/8/02 5:05:54 PM
|

Re: Totally self-contained objects...
Well, objects could be told to accumulate and fuse, and then the whole thing can be told to be red. In fact the property of color need not even exist at the letter level, any more than a typeface does; only in specific representations does it have meaning.
-drl
|
Post #61,903
11/8/02 4:24:28 PM
8/21/07 5:52:38 AM
|

Ahead of the curve
The Smalltalkers have always been way ahead of the hardware curve.
Which is good - by the time they get it worked out, the hardware will arrive.
I also particularly like the comparison of current software development with Egyptian architecture and the characterization of the pyramids as a garbage dump with a lid.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #61,868
11/8/02 11:51:05 AM
|

VERY interesting. Can't wait for the 1.0
I was especially heartened to see their list of todo's include "no unencrypted communication ever."
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #61,872
11/8/02 11:58:20 AM
|

ObStupid Name, Unfortunately
"Mercury" would have been nice.
-drl
|
Post #61,896
11/8/02 3:04:05 PM
|

StupidName, perhaps, but meatspace namespace is flat
How many projects out there are already called "Mercury"? Sourceforge has at least a dozen. How many are called "Croquet"? Sourceforge, for example, has only one. Not to mention any Google for "Mercury" + any IT term is going to turn up 1,000 pages from SJ Merc first.
I'd be more interested in a unique name like they chose than one with White American Male cachet.
No offense. :P
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance - Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation. BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #61,910
11/8/02 5:03:47 PM
|

Mercury = Messenger
I just get tired of meaningless titles - I get enough of that on [link|http://arxiv.org|http://arxiv.org].
Croquet? Stupid name! Not quite as stupid as GRUB, admittedly.
-drl
|