3 ms·
Do you think any of that is because they hadn't paid the pain of failing to scale? I probably spend way too much time thinking about how things I build will wo
by timmg 3y ago
Do you think any of that is because they hadn't paid the pain of failing to scale? I probably spend way too much time thinking about how things I build will work when I get to the "limits" of how much data I will store.
(I'm not suggesting that's the case. Just asking.)
- travisgriggs 3y agoPersonally, I do not. I think it was because they had some solid high level design principles in mind. Go read Dan Ingalls Back to the Future on the Design Principles of Smalltalk, or the original Byte 81 magazine. I’ve moved on, and do languages like Swift, Kotlin, and Python. I’ve read in detail some of the PEP evolutions as well as design discussions for Swift and Kotlin. They’re clearly very smart people. Every bit as smart as Ingalls, Kay, and crowd, but their goals seem so very “pink plane.”
- philipswood 3y ago"pink plane" (vs. "blue plane") Is about incremental improvement vs. paradigm shift. From: > There are two orthogonal forces at work in the Squeak team, with which we have been able to make two kinds of progress. These have most recently been articulated in Alan Kay's allusion to Arthur Koestler's metaphor of progress in two planes: the incremental improvement plane (which Alan calls the "pink" plane) and the paradigm shift (or "blue") plane. ("The Act of Creation", Arthur Koestler, 1964, Arkana Reissue Edition, Paperback, ISBN: 0140191917) Via: [C2 wiki](https://wiki.c2.com/?BluePlane https://wiki.c2.com/?BluePlane) And [Archived Squeak page](http://web.archive.org/web/20050406063507/http://squeak.org/about/headed-prev-vers.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050406063507/http://squeak.org/...)