gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.fonc

Re: Code Bubbles

Andrey Fedorov — 2010-03-11T22:46:38

Re: Code Bubbles

Sean Heber — 2010-03-11T22:31:35

I think that if you're "thinking big" like FONC/VPRI are tasked to do, then the ideal is to be able to write down those abstract goals (and only those goals) and let the computer work out the best way to accomplish them. The trick is to build a system that's self-aware enough to be able to do that while also being trustworthy enough to be allowed to do it. :)

IMO, you can kind of see this thinking in the OMeta example of parsing IP packets simply by providing an ASCII diagram of a packet. That is seriously cool goal-specified programming right there where the only "program" is a picture of the goal itself! That's even better than listing out a bunch of goals in textural form, IMO.

l8r
Sean

Re: Code Bubbles

Chris Gahan — 2010-03-11T22:17:26

Re: Code Bubbles

Chris Gahan — 2010-03-11T22:16:45

Re: Code Bubbles

Andrey Fedorov — 2010-03-11T22:00:08

Re: Code Bubbles

Chris Gahan — 2010-03-11T21:41:47

Re: Code Bubbles

Thiago Silva — 2010-03-11T18:38:33

Watching the demo of this project reminded me of a draft of a proposal
I wrote last year, with the goal of exploring self-documentation,
threating source code as hypertext (I was reading a lot on Engelbart's
NLS, Ted Nelson, Intentional Software and Symbolics Genera at the
time).

For instance, I was missing the possibility to do things like
gathering a bunch of related code on the screen (regardless of "files"
or any kind of namespaces they might belong to), perhaps hyperlink
them, write some explaining text (or mix with drawings, animations,
...), and using that screen as something like a squeak project. That
was pretty much what I saw in the demo of codebubbles.

I was mainly attracted to the idea of having a few of these
"projects", each representing a given point of view of a subsystem or
aspect of the software, hyperlinked and all, to create some kind of
narrative to help explain and explore the inner workings of the
software (as opposed to be exposed to the usual directory tree with a
bunch of source files, or the class browser with a bunch of classes,
where we end up having trouble figuring out where to start, how things
relate and collaborate or what they actually mean).

--
Thiago Silva
Computer Science
M.Sc. Candidate at Federal University of Pernambuco
jabber/gtalk: tsilva-qCIaocQ62K1rovVCs/uTlw< at >public.gmane.org
http://blog.sourcecraft.info


On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Andrey Fedorov <anfedorov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Code Bubbles

Julian Leviston — 2010-03-11T16:56:52

 I think it looks quite cool...

It seems to sit on Eclipse, which means Ruby development might be possible with it. That'd be fantastic.

I've been looking for something that has a class browser and workspace as well as a debugger / runtime inspector for Ruby. If we could get it working for MacRuby it might even allow browsing objects and direct manipulation of code in real time as they're running. Hahah I can only wish :)

Julian.

On 12/03/2010, at 1:42 AM, Sean Heber wrote:

Re: Reading Maxwell's Equations

Pascal J. Bourguignon — 2010-03-11T16:47:17

On 2010/03/06, at 03:34 , John Zabroski wrote:


Believe me, these are reasonable prices!  (And don't forget to add the  
shipping and handling cost, these are heavy machines).

The reason why they're so expensive is because so few of them have  
been made.  You know, demand and offer...

For a time it was possible to buy instead alpha hardware and the  
Genera VM running on alpha.  Unfortunately, since the symbolics.com  
domain has been sold to a blogger, I don't know where you could obtain  
it from.




It was definitely possible to break it, but then you can also break  
your linux kernel and try to reboot.  Or just write to /proc/kmem as  
root...

However, I've been told that they had as good uptimes as unix systems  
if not better, and that their network services weren't as susceptible  
to external attack as on unix systems.

Re: Code Bubbles

Andrey Fedorov — 2010-03-11T16:08:32

Code Bubbles

Sean Heber — 2010-03-11T14:42:06

I found this IDE project very fascinating - perhaps others here will as well:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/acb/codebubbles_site.htm

l8r
Sean

Re: Figuring out what you all want to hear

Robert Feldt — 2010-03-11T13:56:29

VLC 1.0.5 also plays it just fine ( http://videolan.org/ ).

Thanks,

/Robert

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Chris Gahan <chris-suP2y1aX/FV8UrSeD/g0lQ< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Figuring out what you all want to hear

Chris Gahan — 2010-03-11T13:03:16

Re: Figuring out what you all want to hear

Josh McDonald — 2010-03-11T12:41:44

Re: Figuring out what you all want to hear

Chris Gahan — 2010-03-11T12:32:25

Re: my two cents

Robert Feldt — 2010-03-11T04:44:13

It feels like we are mostly into the philosophical now, but can we
know anything through any other means than via an internally formed
model of it? I'm not sure what your point is. My impression is that
Gell-Mann's "aspects" are more general and, for a certain observer,
can be many different things at different levels of abstraction. So
no, they may not be "part of a sum" since they can be at different
levels. I do not think we will get anywhere by discussing what
something "really is"... ;)

In my view, the process of selecting the relevant attributes and then
considering the object in light of them would be just the kind of
in-formation process you are talking about.

Regards,

/Robert

Re: Figuring out what you all want to hear

Thiago Silva — 2010-03-11T00:23:11

Hi John,

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, John Zabroski <johnzabroski-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

I believe you're referring to the following talk:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/070214.html

my backup got corrupted and I couldn't recover that particular video,
but google was of help. I've been able to play the stream using the
following urls:

http://lang.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/070214/070214-ee380-300.wmv
mms://lang.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/070214/070214-ee380-300.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

Also, I've just found it on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn7kTPbW6QQ

this talk made a profound impression in me.

--
Thiago Silva
Computer Science
M.Sc. Candidate at Federal University of Pernambuco
jabber/gtalk: tsilva-qCIaocQ62K1rovVCs/uTlw< at >public.gmane.org
http://blog.sourcecraft.info

Re: my two cents

Alejandro F. Reimondo — 2010-03-10T22:18:22

Re: System A vs B, what?

Alejandro F. Reimondo — 2010-03-10T22:15:30

Re: my two cents

Alejandro F. Reimondo — 2010-03-10T22:05:39

Hi,


It is ok that some people disagree, but I am interested in the people
 that agree with that and the concecuences of following
 that reasoning.
Most of the works in literature consider information as
 something measurable/encapsulable/anObject
 and not as a process of formation/syntesis of something (aModel).
The emergents are intermediate (subproducts) of that process,
 the process of in-formation of an internal model.

What is missing in the intention to measure complexity of a figure
 (e.g. a description) is that it do not consider time;
 it is all (visible/understood) there in an instant;
 and hides the in-formation process.
It is like a snapshot of a system, something similar to consider
 Smalltalk as the image (or its contents) instead of consider
 Smalltalk as the actions made in a virtual media to cristalize
 a model of a system (that is not fixed by its contents
 nor it's "code").

It is frecuent that people working with smalltalk refers to it as a 
language,
 or as a set of tools, or a set of objects... instead to reflect that
 in a sustainable system, the code, and the contents is irrelevant
 (is anegdotic, as it is the big bang of a "new" system)
The same happens in chemestry, where a lot of people think
 in formulae, and/or descriptions of behavior (the rules). It is ok
 to think that way, but has limitations; and there is not enough people
 working to push the limits nor to instruct on how to behave when
 we find the limits/concecuences of the aplication of The Method.


ok, but the "aspects" of a thing re not a thing... ok?
The aspects are not additive, the same with behavior,
 we all undestand the convenience of a model of Behavior
 but it is a reduction of behavior (an emergent) to be handled
 by the system during reflexion... we make it anObject to
 be operated by the system; but it do not means that behavior
 is an object nor can be part of a sum.

cheers,
Ale.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Feldt" <robert.feldt-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
To: "Fundamentals of New Computing" <fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ< at >public.gmane.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] my two cents

Re: Figuring out what you all want to hear

John Zabroski — 2010-03-10T15:16:03