How would an LLM do prompt engineering for you? At some level, as others have stated, prompt engineering is about specifying the important details so the LLM can do the job. If you don't specify those details, how would the LLM know them? Some may be arbitrary and so whatever the LLM makes up might be good enough, but at the end of the day, you have to specify the important details.
Self was definitely an influence. It's where the prototype inheritance came from. Not sure that's a good thing. Smalltalk was more traditional in its inheritance model even if it was all duck typing.
For UI, prototype inheritance was nicer on the Newton (NewtonScript) than on the several of the class-based stuff I played with[1]. Morphic include in Pharo / Squeak is based on Self's UI. I actually like a prototype (other than performance issues) more than class-based. It has a much nicer, lighter feel for me. I just don't think Javascript is the best at it. I loved programming NewtonScript other than its clunky syntax in places. NeXTSTEP got around a lot of crappy class-based behavior by having live objects.
1) I swear I still have nightmares that include OnOk
That was my frustration. I made a game in SmallTalk at one point but there was no way to distribute it to people without giving them my whole image. I just wanted a simple .exe to hand out.
PS: You should be a bit more flexible. If you insist on programming, say, in Haskell the same way you program in C, all you'll do is hurt yourself.
Same goes when you try to use an image-based environment like a standard IDE or toolchain.
Just look at how Pharo itself is distributed: it's a zip file you can uncompress and run right on your desktop. On Windows, it just works out of the box without even running an installer.
> On Windows, it just works out of the box without even running an installer.
You say this as if it's a good thing, it's not. It's a bad thing on Windows. It means the software will not be able to use a lot of facilities on the Windows platform. It's also a hassle for users who need to pick up a target directory, remember it's there, create a shortcut manually, etc...
There are reasons why modern operating systems use installers
As for the article, it is incredibly dated and wrong on many fronts about how people ship software on Windows.
I'll just address one point:
> Unfortunately is not a very flexible way to package anything into a single compiled executable.
It is hard to ship an update - since you have to redeploy the executable anytime your program
changes.
Installing and updating executables on Windows is a solved problem. Solved. It's so easy to deploy patches and even have software self update that nobody thinks about it any more. The fact that Pharo is reinventing its own process under the cover of doing it better (which they don't, it's worse by all standards) is precisely the problem that I was referring to: Pharo (and Smalltalk people in general) still don't understand how to deploy software on modern computers.
Boyd's ideas are laid out really well by his acolyte Chet Richards in his book Certain to Win which applies the military theories to business. If interested at all in this space, check it out.
As a teenager in the early 90s, this show was gold. Before the internet, getting information like this was hard and the show did a good job keeping things interesting.
What this means is that kids' tastes change and as they grow up, so will their tastes. Being popular with kids does not the next Facebook make. Instead, you are more likely to be ChatRoulette, MySpace, LiveJournal, etc.
Blackberry went with the "future OS" and now has cratering market share (under 3%). HTC went with Android, and had a head start over Nokia, and it too has less than 3% market share. Motorola is owned by Google and has virtually no market share.
Everyone seems to assume that Nokia would do well if only it had used another platform. Why? Most of it's competitors haven't.
