Approach to explaining TAOO [was ANN: New Website for TAOO]

[MisterX]

you definitely are on the same wave! May i put this into the wiki? 
 
Anyone with an interest deserves a voice in it i think...
 
You have, again, hit the nail on the head!
 


  _____  

From: Dennis Brown [mailto:see3d at writeme.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:36 PM
To: x at monsieurx.com
Subject: Approach to explaining TAOO [was ANN: New Website for TAOO]


Xavier, 

If I truly have got "it" then I can suggest an approach to explaining "it"

It seems to me that the problem is that you have spent 15 years building a
"do everything I want" program. When you try and explain it, you end up
trying to explain "everything you have wanted" for the last 15 years. This
is next to an impossible task without writing a book! However, all is not
lost. You just need to take us back 15 steps from a technical development
point of view.

TAOO is built on a conceptually simple idea that supports the basic
capability to add functionality. Instead of telling us all about the
wonderful functionality you have built on "it", tell us what "it" is and how
we could use "it" to build our own functionality from the humble beginnings.
Then later tell us about just one at a time of the wonderful things you have
added to "it" to solve a problem. Most important is don't explain anything
using terms that are used for OOP or any other buzzword rich religion.
Explain from simple concepts in normal simple terms that have universal
understanding.

At the most primitive level, you are "supporting" a way of defining a named
script, or a named object with a script. You also have a dictionary of the
things that have been defined to make it easy to find and specify the use of
these things.

We all understand how the things in the last paragraph are defined and used
in Rev. How are they different in "it"?

I am not trying to explain TAOO here. I am trying to explain how you can
explain to me and others in a way that can be grasped --one easy step at a
time. Don't explain too much at once. Just start with the most primitive
concept that makes it possible to build on.

If you start this way, and even create a very simple version of "it" with
almost no added capability for others to try out and explore, I am sure you
will get a lot of useful feedback and helpful participation that you are
looking for.

Dennis

On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:12 AM, MisterX wrote:


you got it!

It's not forth programming with stacks though!

The "name" = object stuff was cleverly left out!

cheers
Xavier