Sat, 24 Oct 1998 04:35:20 -0500 (CDT)
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, David Manifold wrote:
> You seem very upset, and it's probably partially triggered by myself
> getting upset in the last post. My feelings are making issues out of
> things that are not important. Let me explain why I am having trouble:
> I don't understand why you seem so rushed. It is impossible for me to
> discuss anything else with you until you clarify this. Not even the
> direction we are going.
dem. what are you referring to? I dont know of this 'brian'.
Did he write you privately, or did i miss it among all my mailing lists?
was it the person who said you were being incredibly vague etc? In the
email where you were re-explaining orthagonal relationships and compiler
optimization and static software limitations (c++ bindings to Lose32, and
headers/libc of Unix), I understood everything you were talking about
except that the word 'orthagonal' is foreign to me.
i suppose there's somewhere on www.tunes.org that explains it?
so what's TUNES's relationship between the practical and the
theoretical? I'm mighty excited to work on a system that you and Fare
have described. <reminding once again that i am not a programmer yet>.
if i let myself, i'd probably dream about it all day and night.
in other words, I am wondering....for each article posted
explaining the theory about TUNES and what it is -not-, how much code is
written? is it possible yet? we seem to be set on LISP and Scheme as the
programming languages. I hear that lisp is simply perfect ;)
what are the implementation hurdles?
For what it's worth, I'd like to say that I think the TUNES group
has some of the finest talent at communicating. I like how you guys are
able to verbally manipulate massively abstract concepts in such a useful,
expedient way :) People should take lessons from this list.
I'm proud to see people from all countries, from MIT, and
everywhere else, working together.
Remember. There is value in everything, and all is connected.
Even what looks like redundant rhetoric in the short term, represents the
human species debugging itself in the long run. We have some people here
who understand some things about relationships, and that's important.
Tough to talk about, but good good good. IMHO, objects exist merely to
facilitate the relationships between them.
A lot of what's going to be said in this discussion group is going
to sometimes look radically dynamic, redundant, unprovable, disparate, and
maybe useless. Sounds kinda crazy to expect some of these ideas to ever
happen, if anyone even understands them. A lot of times, we're going to
change roles on who's doing and who's following, etc. Sometimes David has
to prove to Fare what TUNES is. That's because we're pounding on the
walls of human perception. We're challenging what's been done, and MORE
IMPORTANTLY, how it's been done. The relationships. Adding dimensions.
We don't know what's going to happen or how we're going to do it.
Sometimes it's like having someone describe a distant culture to you via a
postcard. Sometimes all we know is what has been done, what not to do,
and how not to do it. Backwards.
We have to compensate in all dimensions/perspectives.
Relationships and perceptions. And for a species that can't see
everything all the time, that's tough.
At least Fare and I have agreed that TUNES needs to have an NES
emulator kernel module/library/thing. Who's with us???
"all in all, it's all the same. the only difference is the name, and
where we are."
"you can do a lot in a lifetime, if you dont burn out too fast
you can make the most of the distance, but first you need endurance
First you've got to last."
"We each pay a fabulous price for our visions of paradise,
but a spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission."
This email licensed under the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy).