relationship with our tools? NO.
RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:20:34 +0800
> Also, per some previous discussion, this object would be constantly be
> being "reevaluated" as part of the whole system. I guess this is the part
> with which I have the most difficulty. Perhaps this is where Brian's
> arrow structures arise? Allowing us to determine the "dependencies"?
> While I understand from the below that you aren't overly concerned with
> binary effiencieny, it seems TOO inefficient to reevaluate the -entire-
> system each time the user enters a keystroke, for example.
well, that would be true if we were to _actually_ devote processor time to
re-calculating the state of an entire universe of arrows every time
something new is added extend the system. simplifications, such as keeping
"logs" of changes, could allow the system to "virtually" reconstruct parts
of the system as necessary (i.e. a lazy strategy).
> How will the TUNES abstraction of the underlying system work? Will
> we be writing to a "virtual machine" which takes care of all the
> bookkeeping? At some point, someone has to deal with registers and serial
> ports and disk drives... will all of these things be abstracted out?
in my view of the system, everything possible will be abstracted into the
system of concepts. that way, the programming of protocols for these
devices can be handled with full access to the system's logic resources,
providing the maximum potential for optimization.
> How will I view the code on my TUNES system? (And please don't tell me ,
> however I want) It won't be ASCII text. Will it look like what another
> user viewing the object sees? Will it be the same code that I downloaded
> off the 'Net?
interfaces are objects, too. i could make an interface to my arrow system
which really _could_ use ascii text, or graphical arrows, or a Self-styled
"objects with slots" interface. i could also make a compressed format which
would be useful only to the software that sends the information over a
communications line to a decoder.
there _are_ ways of guaranteeing that semantical information is kept in
tact, despite the transformations in syntax which may occur. this mostly
involves the formalization of context, which i am working on doing from
within the arrow system specifically.