I agree with this... there are many ways individuals learn... We've all been exposed to "Learn by doing". Have you ever experienced "Learn by teaching"? By that I mean you are teaching something or explaining something and someone asks a question (or your subconscious poses the question) -- and you provide an answer... then you say to yourself -- "I didn't know I knew that!"
The same thing can happen with any creative activity like "authoring"... You must lean forward and participate as opposed to lean back and observe... both are necessary.
One of my grandsons is hooked on the game MineCraft -- and very good at it. He doesn't realize it, but he is doing 3D CAD and 3D Drafting (for which he has no training or interest). Think of the possibilities if he could interactively author the "games" as well as play them.
I kinda' agree with this too... the original iOS SDK had lots of flaws and security exposures -- so they closed it down. Also, I believe that Apple didn't know what it had -- and was reluctant to expose too much too soon -- in case it would prevent them from further development or exploitation -- and it could aid potential competitors.
...
I think you are the first person in the thread to get his criticism.
Kay gets that the multi-touch interface on the iPad is easier to learn. His fear is that like speaking is easier to do than reading and writing that the iPad is a step backwards in terms of capability, especially in the context of symmetric authoring and consumption.
I think he's wrong about that and your example of minecraft is spot on. Etoy's implementation may not pass muster for the app store but the Etoy concept certainly be implemented as an app in the same way that construction can be done in minecraft. Even the limitations of no interpreters is bypassed in that context although apps like koder allows you to do HTML coding which indicates some loopholes.
It's a shame that his view of the iPad is marred by the removal of Scratch from the App Store. I wonder if a Scratch implementation that ran in Javascript (like Amber Smalltalk) would pass muster. It wouldn't have a separate VM.
And this is what Kay was referring to with his comment about "symmetric authoring and consuming."
Yes, and as I pointed out, he's criticizing Apple because his own app won't work the way that he wishes it to. He's just upset that Apple has rules which doesn't allow iOS apps to download executable code.
This isn't the wild west, and we can't have a free for all, with everybody doing exactly what they want, otherwise we'd end up with horrible crap like Android. So, if anybody needs to go and download executable code directly to their devices from anywhere in the world, including from children in a classroom, or from gangsters in Russia, then go ahead and use Android, problem solved.
Could you actually read the article? His criticism is that they DIDN'T move past the original concepts of Xerox/PARC. The flaws that were in the original GUI are still there, plus some new ones.
And exactly which flaws have they not moved past? Can you offer anything beyond merely parroting?
I suspect it may have something to do with the lack of (or presence of) a Finder and the underlying File System.
I don't know what the answer is – but neither having one, or not having one seems to work.
Stop hyperventilating. The issue is not his legacy or his past contributions -- no one has questioned that. It whether he makes any sense at all in his current critique.
No. Bad example. The Wright brothers actually researched, experimented, built, tested, flew, and commercialized the airplane.
Kay's relationship to computing is more like Leonardo's relationship to the airplane. Leonardo was an idea guy who conceptualized about flying and built mockups etc. Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days.
Anyway my take on this is that people are being a bit harsh. I think Kay is just promoting his concepts and isn't really hating on iOS so much. If he wants to be constructive he should be more specific, otherwise it does just sound like sour grapes or whining.
Personally I don't like some things about iOS either and they mostly have to do with inconsistencies in the UI and a lack of clear UI guiding principals. This is partially because the multitouch UI is in it's infancy, partially because of the fast pace of development, and partially because of poor organization on the part of Apple. I assume now that Jony is on it, there's a better chance things will get and stay far more cogent as the GUI develops. A designer at his level is an absolute master of taking a complex mess like iOS, rethinking, simplifying, organizing, and then reforming it into a better solution. That's what iOS needs in many small ways and a few big ways. This isn't a bash, it's just the way things evolve. iOS is still miles ahead of everyone else.
[and now after posting this I see someone else has posted a drawing by Leonardo further down in the discussion. sorry If I'm repeating stuff I have yet to read.]
I respect Kay, but as for the iPad not living up to HIS vision of portable computing and hurling criticisms of Steve Jobs' management style as the "cause"? C'mon. It's a free market: and Kay has had 20+ years to put a competing product out there. Don't hate, create.
Dyna is not a unique name. There use to be a manufacturer called, I believe, the Dyna Company, who use to make receiver, pre-amp. and amplifier kits for fm reception and the turntable. I made each during the late 60s. I don't know when it went out of business. But Dyna not a unique creation.
Stop hyperventilating. The issue is not his legacy or his past contributions -- no one has questioned that. It whether he makes any sense at all in his current critique.
No. Bad example. The Wright brothers actually researched......
The discourse today while passionate seems a lot more on point and topical. Far more mature conversation than usual. I can't quite put my finger on it but something seems different.
As to Kay, I think any critique of his statements need more details as to what his specific criticism are in regards to the iPad. Perhaps another article give more specifics since Kay doesn't the type to just make vague criticisms. But if you think about it Apple also agrees that things can be improved or we would still be on iOS 1. There is always things that can be improved or changed for the better. I can't wait to see what iOS 7 offers.
The discourse today while passionate seems a lot more on point and topical. Far more mature conversation than usual. I can't quite put my finger on it but something seems different.
As to Kay, I think any critique of his statements need more details as to what his specific criticism are in regards to the iPad. Perhaps another article give more specifics since Kay doesn't the type to just make vague criticisms. But if you think about it Apple also agrees that things can be improved or we would still be on iOS 1. There is always things that can be improved or changed for the better. I can't wait to see what iOS 7 offers.
I don't think anyone posting in this thread doesn't think that iOS can use improvement in some area. The problem is that too many people see disagreeing with calling iOS "poor" as saying that iOS or Apple are perfect. They then go into long, fallacious arguments about how Kay is automatically right and no one could possibly be able disagree with him without being raging fanbois.
I respect Kay, but as for the iPad not living up to HIS vision of portable computing and hurling criticisms of Steve Jobs' management style as the "cause"? C'mon. It's a free market: and Kay has had 20+ years to put a competing product out there. Don't hate, create.
I'll agree with that.
Looking at the posts, half of them sound like people who are either "currently in a romantic relationship with" Allan Kay or "just got dumped by him."
Really he has been incredibly influential and productive and is a pioneer, but he is more of an academic and an "idea guy" and he's definitely not above criticism, especially when he's making bold but vague critical statements himself.
And to say "he invented OOP and overlapping windowing" (post #68) is really an overstatement (although again, he was a pioneer in the area.) It would be akin to saying "Woz invented the personal computer" or "Jobs invented the iPod."
These kind of assertions all smack of cultish idol worship.
No. Bad example. The Wright brothers actually researched, experimented, built, tested, flew, and commercialized the airplane.
Kay's relationship to computing is more like Leonardo's relationship to the airplane. Leonardo was an idea guy who conceptualized about flying and built mockups etc. Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days.
Anyway my take on this is that people are being a bit harsh. I think Kay is just promoting his concepts and isn't really hating on iOS so much. If he wants to be constructive he should be more specific, otherwise it does just sound like sour grapes or whining.
Personally I don't like some things about iOS either and they mostly have to do with inconsistencies in the UI and a lack of clear UI guiding principals. This is partially because the multitouch UI is in it's infancy, partially because of the fast pace of development, and partially because of poor organization on the part of Apple. I assume now that Jony is on it, there's a better chance things will get and stay far more cogent as the GUI develops. A designer at his level is an absolute master of taking a complex mess like iOS, rethinking, simplifying, organizing, and then reforming it into a better solution. That's what iOS needs in many small ways and a few big ways. This isn't a bash, it's just the way things evolve. iOS is still miles ahead of everyone else.
[and now after posting this I see someone else has posted a drawing by Leonardo further down in the discussion. sorry If I'm repeating stuff I have yet to read.]
What planet are you from? Kay designed the Xerox Alto (the direct predecessor of the Mac), and Smalltalk -- an extremely influential, and still very widely used programming language, so he did NOT just philosophize.
One of the things that Apple doesn't allow in iOS is programs that can download executable code. For the thousands of teachers who use Squeak as a way of teaching beginning programming, this means that children cannot share programs they write with one another unless they follow Apple's current requirement that they use Android.
This is why Squeak is popular on OLPC, and is being ported to Android, but any iOS version will be lacking in that social component.
And this is what Kay was referring to with his comment about "symmetric authoring and consuming."
Is Squeak widely used? This is not a rhetorical question, I just don't know.
Even the title of this AppleInsider article misses Alan Kay's point entirely. To restate his point clearly: "iPad sucks because kids can't share their programs." Nothing to do with UI.
Kay strongly believes that kids should be able to write programs, and that writing programs is a way to become more intelligent, like Algebra, only more so. Algebra might or might not be handy everyday, but it teaches thinking.
Turns out that if kids can share programs, they learn a LOT faster. Look at http://scratch.mit.edu
But Apple's iOS security policies will not allow programming systems like Scratch, or Kay's "eToys," into the iOS App Store, because Scratch and eToys have as fundamental features the ability to share programs.
I know from personal communication that Kay and his assistants talked to high-level Apple officials, but their request was rejected. So, no Scratch, or eToys, on iOS. HUGE SIGH.
He is knocking Apple's restrictions for interpreted languages since he believed children should be writing code to learn on the Dynabooks. Sorry Alan, the iPad blows away the Dynabook you butt hurt moron.
I am afraid that YOU are the moron. Kay is a million times smarter than you have ever been or ever will be. The paper you give is from '72, when computers were (by coincidencce) roughly a million times slower than your phone. Making a machine with a GUI was an amazing technical feat back then.
Comments
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree with this... there are many ways individuals learn... We've all been exposed to "Learn by doing". Have you ever experienced "Learn by teaching"? By that I mean you are teaching something or explaining something and someone asks a question (or your subconscious poses the question) -- and you provide an answer... then you say to yourself -- "I didn't know I knew that!"
The same thing can happen with any creative activity like "authoring"... You must lean forward and participate as opposed to lean back and observe... both are necessary.
One of my grandsons is hooked on the game MineCraft -- and very good at it. He doesn't realize it, but he is doing 3D CAD and 3D Drafting (for which he has no training or interest). Think of the possibilities if he could interactively author the "games" as well as play them.
I kinda' agree with this too... the original iOS SDK had lots of flaws and security exposures -- so they closed it down. Also, I believe that Apple didn't know what it had -- and was reluctant to expose too much too soon -- in case it would prevent them from further development or exploitation -- and it could aid potential competitors.
...
I think you are the first person in the thread to get his criticism.
Kay gets that the multi-touch interface on the iPad is easier to learn. His fear is that like speaking is easier to do than reading and writing that the iPad is a step backwards in terms of capability, especially in the context of symmetric authoring and consumption.
I think he's wrong about that and your example of minecraft is spot on. Etoy's implementation may not pass muster for the app store but the Etoy concept certainly be implemented as an app in the same way that construction can be done in minecraft. Even the limitations of no interpreters is bypassed in that context although apps like koder allows you to do HTML coding which indicates some loopholes.
It's a shame that his view of the iPad is marred by the removal of Scratch from the App Store. I wonder if a Scratch implementation that ran in Javascript (like Amber Smalltalk) would pass muster. It wouldn't have a separate VM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
And this is what Kay was referring to with his comment about "symmetric authoring and consuming."
Yes, and as I pointed out, he's criticizing Apple because his own app won't work the way that he wishes it to. He's just upset that Apple has rules which doesn't allow iOS apps to download executable code.
This isn't the wild west, and we can't have a free for all, with everybody doing exactly what they want, otherwise we'd end up with horrible crap like Android. So, if anybody needs to go and download executable code directly to their devices from anywhere in the world, including from children in a classroom, or from gangsters in Russia, then go ahead and use Android, problem solved.
I suspect it may have something to do with the lack of (or presence of) a Finder and the underlying File System.
I don't know what the answer is – but neither having one, or not having one seems to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I suspect it may have something to do with the lack of (or presence of) a Finder and the underlying File System.
I don't know what the answer is – but neither having one, or not having one seems to work.
Huh? That makes no sense. So the flaws of the PARC GUI was no finder or an underlying file system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Stop hyperventilating. The issue is not his legacy or his past contributions -- no one has questioned that. It whether he makes any sense at all in his current critique.
No. Bad example.
Kay's relationship to computing is more like Leonardo's relationship to the airplane. Leonardo was an idea guy who conceptualized about flying and built mockups etc. Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days.
Anyway my take on this is that people are being a bit harsh. I think Kay is just promoting his concepts and isn't really hating on iOS so much. If he wants to be constructive he should be more specific, otherwise it does just sound like sour grapes or whining.
Personally I don't like some things about iOS either and they mostly have to do with inconsistencies in the UI and a lack of clear UI guiding principals. This is partially because the multitouch UI is in it's infancy, partially because of the fast pace of development, and partially because of poor organization on the part of Apple. I assume now that Jony is on it, there's a better chance things will get and stay far more cogent as the GUI develops. A designer at his level is an absolute master of taking a complex mess like iOS, rethinking, simplifying, organizing, and then reforming it into a better solution. That's what iOS needs in many small ways and a few big ways. This isn't a bash, it's just the way things evolve. iOS is still miles ahead of everyone else.
[and now after posting this I see someone else has posted a drawing by Leonardo further down in the discussion. sorry If I'm repeating stuff I have yet to read.]
Dyna is not a unique name. There use to be a manufacturer called, I believe, the Dyna Company, who use to make receiver, pre-amp. and amplifier kits for fm reception and the turntable. I made each during the late 60s. I don't know when it went out of business. But Dyna not a unique creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Stop hyperventilating. The issue is not his legacy or his past contributions -- no one has questioned that. It whether he makes any sense at all in his current critique.
No. Bad example.
Wrong person!
The discourse today while passionate seems a lot more on point and topical. Far more mature conversation than usual. I can't quite put my finger on it but something seems different.
As to Kay, I think any critique of his statements need more details as to what his specific criticism are in regards to the iPad. Perhaps another article give more specifics since Kay doesn't the type to just make vague criticisms. But if you think about it Apple also agrees that things can be improved or we would still be on iOS 1. There is always things that can be improved or changed for the better. I can't wait to see what iOS 7 offers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
The discourse today while passionate seems a lot more on point and topical. Far more mature conversation than usual. I can't quite put my finger on it but something seems different.
As to Kay, I think any critique of his statements need more details as to what his specific criticism are in regards to the iPad. Perhaps another article give more specifics since Kay doesn't the type to just make vague criticisms. But if you think about it Apple also agrees that things can be improved or we would still be on iOS 1. There is always things that can be improved or changed for the better. I can't wait to see what iOS 7 offers.
I don't think anyone posting in this thread doesn't think that iOS can use improvement in some area. The problem is that too many people see disagreeing with calling iOS "poor" as saying that iOS or Apple are perfect. They then go into long, fallacious arguments about how Kay is automatically right and no one could possibly be able disagree with him without being raging fanbois.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I respect Kay, but as for the iPad not living up to HIS vision of portable computing and hurling criticisms of Steve Jobs' management style as the "cause"? C'mon. It's a free market: and Kay has had 20+ years to put a competing product out there. Don't hate, create.
I'll agree with that.
Looking at the posts, half of them sound like people who are either "currently in a romantic relationship with" Allan Kay or "just got dumped by him."
Really he has been incredibly influential and productive and is a pioneer, but he is more of an academic and an "idea guy" and he's definitely not above criticism, especially when he's making bold but vague critical statements himself.
And to say "he invented OOP and overlapping windowing" (post #68) is really an overstatement (although again, he was a pioneer in the area.) It would be akin to saying "Woz invented the personal computer" or "Jobs invented the iPod."
These kind of assertions all smack of cultish idol worship.
Wow that's weird.
Sorry about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Wrong person!
I was quoting / meant to quote (?!) jaragosta's post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So, by that logic, the Wright Brothers should be criticizing Boeing for the design of the 787 or NASA for the design of the space shuttle.
After all, the Wright Brothers had a great idea and the current implementation is imperfect.
All I know is that there is no possibility that this was a user error! It must have been the software. /s
To all the people defending Kay I think you should read this.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#section_1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
You wouldn't know that by looking at his website.
http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
No. Bad example.
Kay's relationship to computing is more like Leonardo's relationship to the airplane. Leonardo was an idea guy who conceptualized about flying and built mockups etc. Kay did the same with computing (but to a greater extent,) developing some really important concepts and ideas about computing in the early days.
Anyway my take on this is that people are being a bit harsh. I think Kay is just promoting his concepts and isn't really hating on iOS so much. If he wants to be constructive he should be more specific, otherwise it does just sound like sour grapes or whining.
Personally I don't like some things about iOS either and they mostly have to do with inconsistencies in the UI and a lack of clear UI guiding principals. This is partially because the multitouch UI is in it's infancy, partially because of the fast pace of development, and partially because of poor organization on the part of Apple. I assume now that Jony is on it, there's a better chance things will get and stay far more cogent as the GUI develops. A designer at his level is an absolute master of taking a complex mess like iOS, rethinking, simplifying, organizing, and then reforming it into a better solution. That's what iOS needs in many small ways and a few big ways. This isn't a bash, it's just the way things evolve. iOS is still miles ahead of everyone else.
[and now after posting this I see someone else has posted a drawing by Leonardo further down in the discussion. sorry If I'm repeating stuff I have yet to read.]
What planet are you from? Kay designed the Xerox Alto (the direct predecessor of the Mac), and Smalltalk -- an extremely influential, and still very widely used programming language, so he did NOT just philosophize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
One of the things that Apple doesn't allow in iOS is programs that can download executable code. For the thousands of teachers who use Squeak as a way of teaching beginning programming, this means that children cannot share programs they write with one another unless they follow Apple's current requirement that they use Android.
This is why Squeak is popular on OLPC, and is being ported to Android, but any iOS version will be lacking in that social component.
And this is what Kay was referring to with his comment about "symmetric authoring and consuming."
Is Squeak widely used? This is not a rhetorical question, I just don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
To all the people defending Kay I think you should read this.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#section_1
And the one's attacking him can read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Kay strongly believes that kids should be able to write programs, and that writing programs is a way to become more intelligent, like Algebra, only more so. Algebra might or might not be handy everyday, but it teaches thinking.
Turns out that if kids can share programs, they learn a LOT faster. Look at http://scratch.mit.edu
But Apple's iOS security policies will not allow programming systems like Scratch, or Kay's "eToys," into the iOS App Store, because Scratch and eToys have as fundamental features the ability to share programs.
I know from personal communication that Kay and his assistants talked to high-level Apple officials, but their request was rejected. So, no Scratch, or eToys, on iOS. HUGE SIGH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
He is knocking Apple's restrictions for interpreted languages since he believed children should be writing code to learn on the Dynabooks. Sorry Alan, the iPad blows away the Dynabook you butt hurt moron.
http://www.mprove.de/diplom/gui/Kay72a.pdf
I am afraid that YOU are the moron. Kay is a million times smarter than you have ever been or ever will be. The paper you give is from '72, when computers were (by coincidencce) roughly a million times slower than your phone. Making a machine with a GUI was an amazing technical feat back then.