Please Stop Discussing Arrows Until We All Have a Fair Chance
at Understanding the Theory
RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:00:20 +0300
> Ok Brian, I think I speak for many people on the list who haven't had a
> to read (or have the background) for the arrow system., through the fog of
> terms, I think I am begining to see something concrete, but what we need
> now, I
> hate to sound demanding, is a straight forward tutorial/primer/intro. We
> all have a look at it then, I propose, until this is provided, we STOP
> DISCUSSING ARROWS (didn't mean to yell, just want to get people to read
> part), as many people (including myself) haven't caught up with what this
> has to
> do with a computing system, and we are really loosing the advantage of
> such a
> large group with only a few people discussing the ideas, and all the talk
> now is
> being ignored by a large number and might have to be re-discussed.
ok. i assume here that you're recognizing the potential for real code here
and a definite shot at coming up with the Tunes system, but you're also
simultaneously asking for a change in my relationship with the group. i
have some ideas to that end, but i think that it's the group's decision now.
so, i have questions for you and anyone else who agrees with you:
first, from what perspective should this tutorial be based? more
specifically, what sort of description are you looking to use for the
ideas: the arrow system is a new type of computing system, because
it is designed to reflect not just on programming, but also on the way
_people_ think about things as well... ? (not a good way to go, but a
reference point for discussing how to start the tutorial.)
do you want to review the sections of the tutorial before it gets released?
who's going to take responsibility for screening my input for the group?
who can i count on to do some good thinking on my work?