[comp.sys.mac] Changing Paradigms

schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Richard Schaut) (12/20/89)

In the midst of the flame war, Doug McDonald said something that, I think,
touches on an idea that has been germinating in my head for the past few
months:

In article <1989Dec19.152919.7284@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
| 
|   [Intelligence] is the ability to solve complicated problems by
| combining pieces of a solution, being able to see how to do a 
| given task by working with convenient pre-existing things. It is the
| same kind of task that high schoolers learn (well, I did) in 
| geometry (proving theorems), that freshmen learn in calculus
| class (doing a complicated integral by various tricks) and that I
| do in my business, solving problems in theoretical physics.

The current situation on both the Macs and the PCs is marked by the
existence of monolithic/do-everythin-immaginable programs.  Will the
advent of multitasking/multithreading OS' on both machines result in
a shift from the paradigm of the monolith to the paradigm of programs
built from small building blocks that the user can piece together to
fit his own needs?  If the interprocess communication facilities are
simple yet quick enough, we could see another revolution in the personal
computer industry.  The chances of this are even more enhanced by the
device independance built into both new systems.  The best thing about
such a shift is that everybody wins, especially the user.

I'm interested in what the rest of you think about this.  Also, since
this discussion is pertinant to both systems, I've left the cross-posting
untouched.


--
Rick

"Any questions?  Any answers?  Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner

freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (12/20/89)

In article <4125@puff.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Richard
Schaut) writes:
>The current situation on both the Macs and the PCs is marked by the
>existence of monolithic/do-everythin-immaginable programs.

YES!  I don't think it is RIGHT that nowadays every draw-type program
tends to contain a complete (but inferior) word-processor, and that
every word-processor tends to contain a complete (but inferior) draw-
type program.
--
Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk                  Path: uunet!fwi.uva.nl!freek
#P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**

michael@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Michael Bodine) (12/21/89)

Richard Schaut (schaut@cat9.CS.WISC.EDU) writes:
> In article <1989Dec19.152919.7284@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
> |   [Intelligence] is the ability to solve complicated problems by
> | combining pieces of a solution, being able to see how to do a 
> | given task by working with convenient pre-existing things. It is the
> The current situation on both the Macs and the PCs is marked by the
> existence of monolithic/do-everythin-immaginable programs.  Will the
> advent of multitasking/multithreading OS' on both machines result in
> a shift from the paradigm of the monolith to the paradigm of programs
> built from small building blocks that the user can piece together to
> fit his own needs?  If the interprocess communication facilities are
Ooooh!  Yeah!  I'm just getting rolling on programming things on my Mac.
The hassle, as a user, of exporting a file to some standard (PICT or TEXT)
thus losing all of the nice things about the file in the process, so you
can "pipe" it to another application is a big hassle.  Multifinder and the
Scrapbook are better, but not much -- information is often not fully 
transferable this way and the amount of mousing needed is tedious!  If
there was something more analagous to unix pipes, the building block paradigm
would be more convenient than cutting/pasting or exporting.  However,
there would still be a lot of problems in that, even as closely controlled
as some of the Mac data are, palette differences, Postscript handling, 
internal formats, etc., etc. would probably still cause a lot of data 
to be lost through the pipe.  Apple would have to do a lot more enforcing
somehow to make everyone more compatible.  A tough row to hoe...
-- 
[ Michael Bodine, michael@chg.mcd.mot.com, Dial: (312) 576-7840, FAX: x8875    ]
[ Opinions expressed are mine!  All mine!  Motorola couldn't have them even if ][ they wanted them!  No one else agrees with me;  why should my employer?      ]

mark@lakesys.lakesys.com (Mark Storin) (12/21/89)

In article <4125@puff.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.CS.WISC.EDU (Richard Schaut) writes:
>The current situation on both the Macs and the PCs is marked by the
>existence of monolithic/do-everythin-immaginable programs.  Will the
>advent of multitasking/multithreading OS' on both machines result in
>a shift from the paradigm of the monolith to the paradigm of programs
>built from small building blocks that the user can piece together to
>fit his own needs? 

	This sounds almost like what Unix started out as.  Software tools,
small programs that did one thing well, that could be combined to create more
complicated tools to solve inumerable problems. 
	People have complained about the complexity of learning to use
computers, but, like any other powerful tool, it takes time to master.  The
trend towards "do-everthing" programs is unfortunate as it stifles
creativity.  Granted, the process needs to be simplified and made less
cryptic.  From what I have been reading about strides in programing, it is
getting there.  Perhaps soon you will be able to drag tools across your
screen and connect them in ways simular to the way we write shell scripts
now.  I have read articles that have mentioned the idea of hooks and
interfaces into spreadsheets, databases, and the like, so that users could
write their own applications calling facilities from each of these.  
	The key to much of this is education.  If people are brought up on
computers, they will not find simple programming much more difficult than
math or science studies (it really isn't you know, in fact, I find it much
easier than trying to do complicated math).
	Personally, I hope this will be the trend.  My favorite OS is Unix
for the simple reason that it gives me the tools I need to build virtually
anything I need.


-- 
Mark A. Storin
Lake Systems, Milw., WI
mark@lakesys.lakesys.COM

lai@Apple.COM (Ed Lai) (12/21/89)

In article <29819@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> michael@mcdchg.chi.il.us (Michael Bodine) writes:
>Richard Schaut (schaut@cat9.CS.WISC.EDU) writes:
>> In article <1989Dec19.152919.7284@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>> The current situation on both the Macs and the PCs is marked by the
>> existence of monolithic/do-everythin-immaginable programs.  Will the
>> advent of multitasking/multithreading OS' on both machines result in
>> a shift from the paradigm of the monolith to the paradigm of programs
>> built from small building blocks that the user can piece together to
>> fit his own needs?  If the interprocess communication facilities are
>Ooooh!  Yeah!  I'm just getting rolling on programming things on my Mac.
>The hassle, as a user, of exporting a file to some standard (PICT or TEXT)
>thus losing all of the nice things about the file in the process, so you
>can "pipe" it to another application is a big hassle.  Multifinder and the
>Scrapbook are better, but not much -- information is often not fully 
>transferable this way and the amount of mousing needed is tedious!  If
>there was something more analagous to unix pipes, the building block paradigm
>would be more convenient than cutting/pasting or exporting.  However,

The Clipboard Magician DA (available from SUMEX) is built on the paradigm that
in stead of a big monolithic program, the main program should be no more than
a shell (the DA is about 14K). To do the real work there should be a lot of
small tool that can be installed and removed according to the user's need
(in this particular case there are a pool of 40 to 50 tools of about 2K each,
the number of tools keep growing since it can be written independently). Each
tool is in a sense like a pipe since it transform data from one form to another.
And the operation desired by the user may sometimes be achieved by a whole
sequence of transformation.

/* Disclaimer: All statments and opinions expressed are my own */
/* Edmund K. Lai                                               */
/* Apple Computer, MS75-6J                                     */
/* 20525 Mariani Ave,                                          */
/* Cupertino, CA 95014                                         */
/* (408)974-6272                                               */
zW@h9cOi