aka Ozten PersonHomepage
Howdy, I am a Seattle based artist and computer programmer. I have been lurking on CW for a while now and with some encouragement joined into the conversation. I am attracted to the free flow of ideas here.
Does RealNames imply RealPhotos?
Welcome Austin! Thanks for de-lurking.
Everybody, Austin is a coworker of mine. We talk about stuff at lunch together.
welcome, austin! hope you will soon become a coworker of this community.
as for all those embarrassing question marks, you can suppress them by making a “!” at the beginning of those words (see RealNames or RealPhotos)
Hi, Austin! Welcome. I’m new here so perhaps can best address the RealPhotos thing. RealPhotos are the consensus, but do not appear to be an explicit rule. There appears to be many traditions and social conventions here that follow this pattern. This allows things to flow without needing a 200 page rulebook to guide us, and also allows new conventions to emerge or old ones to die. Also, it’s fun.
Ethics is what you want - it may be possible to clarify the you in the statement. Christopher Alexander in The Nature of Order discusses the possibility of consensus if the you is not “you” right now at the moment, but is a deeper you. Perhaps the universal ego, a concept of an eternal you, or a “you” with a chance for reflecting on the what being asked. Additionally in the same text Alexander discusses driving community consensus by limiting the “what” to very specific questions and not generalities, so that the yous involved will all be asking their collective self the same concrete question.
that sounds interesting . in my opinion the universal ego, the eternal you, the collective self is a connection . or a connection of connections . the simplest structure that could possibly work is our wiki-tree . if you have n yous, you need n-1 connections to build it . so, let’s start with this tree of yous .
Thanks sigi. I will have to think about the yous wiki-tree.
VisualLanguage - Periodic Table of Visualization Methods A great list of visual language forms, which an example for each. Shoehorning them into the periodic table is a bit too cute, but I think this is a great list.
Questions about SuperObject
Just trying to organize some thoughts and questions, I am excited about what you are writing on the topic…
Assuming Kay is talking about a single unified object model where objects are composed of objects, and there are a fewer number of elementary objects, must like our body goes from an original cell into the 250(ish) types of an adult body. These objects expose themselves through whatever costume best instructs or informs the user as to it’s nature and capabilities. Everything presented to the user, visually, or behind the scenes is a living breathing 1st class citizen - much like Shakespeare’s trees on stage, or Objects in a Squeak image.
Q: Why large? I am missing this connection to what Kay is talking about. I think he is talking about millions of simple objects interacting via message passing.
Q: Why object attributes and why describe implementation details with type information? Why mention files, xml, etc? Are these inherent to your understanding of SuperObject, or an implementation of a SuperObject prototype?
Extreme late binding allows objects to be recombined in any manner. Message passing as the sole means of creating behavior and interaction is the model for RPC and intra-application communication. The Sugar UI has a concept of journaling ( objects you’ve used in reverse chronological order ) rather than files in a file system. I think they are going to throw away much of the nuts and bolts we have implemented 1970’s OS with, to create the simplest personal computer which can still perform computation and realize the users concepts.
Q: The exciting / frustrating thing ( for me personally ) is that they are attempting an implementation from the bare-metal up. Is you post ideas around designing a solution that lives atop Python or something else and applying these ideas in that space? Example:SuperObject wiki engine
I think this SuperObject may be a fruitful path. If one can’t commit 5 years to writing a virtual virtual machine, designing a PL syntax, inventing a more effective GUI, and capturing the “exploratorium” metaphor into a computational model to sum up inventing the future from the bare-metal up, it is at least worth reconsidering how we worth within our current static straight jacket computing environments, in an incremental fashion.
I fell like there is more leverage the deeper you start to rebuild, however leaving lower levels alone: Hardware, OS, GPPL, and starting at the browser and the HTTP server may not be a promising middle ground.
I found the proposal really really inspiring. It is a radical approach with some very hard problems to be solved. I find it challenging choosing when / where to experiment with existing / new projects and at what level within the software stack.
Aside: I have begun reading Douglas Engelbart’s original papers as a result… http://www.bootstrap.org/institute/bibliography.html
GPPL - General Purpose Programming Language
I’m not going so much on the hardware angle, because: I don’t own a manufacturing plant.
But I do have a general purpose computer, and I can apply some of the ideas in the paper. In particular, the “All Objects are One Object” idea, having objects that are smart like actors in a play, and are used in different roles.
I believe I’m going to be able to, in one fell swoop, unify 80% of the architecture for:
That’s saying a lot. Will it actually work? I don’t see any reason why not, but lack of seeing something is nothing to be proud of. I’ll find out, and post about my experiments this weekend.