The exe file is the program, compiled and linked, ready-to-run. The source code is in the other files (the desktop, the finder, the editor, the writer, the compiler, the noodle). The instructions PDF in the documentation directory explain how to re-compile those source files using the provided exe. No viruses, no spyware, no trojans.

No doubt we could benefit from a bit more humility. Who wouldn't? But keep in mind that the manual is written as if it were the program itself, the CAL-3040, speaking. I always picture the tone like that of the HAL-9000 from "2001 - A Space Odyssey".

Our program looks and behaves exactly the same -- exactly the same -- on Windows XP, Vista, 7, and 8. That kind of consistency can't be achieved unless we "take over the screen". And since we want the programmer to be both thoroughly immersed in our iconoclastic environment, and yet to be free, when writing his own programs, to make them look anyway he wants -- unfettered by somebody else's idea of what a window or a button should like like -- we really have no other choice but to "take over the screen". In any case, you can always ALT-TAB to other applications, or minimize the thing (using the "Minimize" command on the "M" menu) to return to Windows Land.

See you then

Megalomania ? Urge to dumb the real world down ?

Thanks, Joe, for the insight and empathy. I agree -- and I don't really understand why people feel the need to so strongly criticize things they haven't fully investigated. But I will say this: the Linux community is downright meek and mild compared to the folks we've dealt with in the Windows neighborhood.

Thanks again. We've always felt like there are two kinds of genius -- the "inspiration" or Albert Einstein kind, that pictures the whole shebang in some new and insightful way; and the "perspiration" or Thomas Edison kind, that just wants the thing to light up and perseveres, trial-and-error-wise, through a thousand possible filament materials until one doesn't burn out. We picture ourselves at the very low end of the second group.

I'm not sure how far we can go with this. The sample program described in the instructions paints pictures in the style of Claude Monet: you tell it the subject you're interested in, say a horse or a portrait of Madonna, and it does the rest. It "discovers" what a horse or a Madonna looks like by asking Google to show it some pictures. Perhaps someday it will be also able to link up with, for example, Mathematica, all by itself, to solve complex equations; or with Google Maps to discover the best way to get from point A to point B.

It seems that "open-minded" is a rare commodity these days. It's refreshing to hear from you. Stay tuned. In the meantime, even if you don't have a Windows machine to run the program, you might enjoy reading through the manual in the download (it's in both native and PDF form).

I actually already started doing that. I ran the very first example on my virtual boxed xp. I also have windows installed on my company laptop, I might play around a bit more on my next business trip when I sit in boring hotel rooms in the evening :-)

In general, there is a great book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Guru-Paper.../dp/1883319005 .

One can get excerpts from the book from

http://freedomofmind.com/Info/infoDet.php?id=250
http://www.traditionalyogastudies.co...er-and-alstad/
http://factnet.org/guru-papers-masks...ritarian-power
http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/quotes_guru_papers.htm

and maybe from other places.

To me the OP's desire to find an "open-minded" programmer without answering the key questions asked and addressing the key issues raised in this thread looks like an attempt to recruit yet another disciple for a guru cause. Especially taking into account that in the manifest the horizon is 30 years - I think I'll be dead by then.

As I said, it is quite possible that the OP has come up with a revolutionary new computer science, but in this case he has to show how the new science resolves the problems of the old one. So far I see taking over the screen - which is not a resolution.

@Sergei: you have a right to your own opinion on the OP's development, but this does not mean that it is OK to express it in a rude way. Please review LQ rules, esp.

What exactly is rude ?

Openly questioning a participant's psychological motivation is rude. It is also the very definition of a personal attack. I usually quit forums where this becomes common.

And to make this post on topic: I have zero interest in working on this program.

1 members found this post helpful.

That pretty much says it all.

Why do you think it is rude ? And/or according to which school of thinking it is rude ? And even according to a school of thinking it is rude, why should I stick to that school of thinking ? And if you think I should stick to that (and not some other) school of thinking, don't you think it's a manifestation of authoritarian thinking ?

Also, don't you think that recruiting clueless disciples is rude towards the potential disciples ?

2 members found this post helpful.

Please repond to the PM, no need to steal this thread to discuss this.

Sure there is a need to use this thread to discuss this.

You accused me of being rude publicly, and that's why I demand to give definition of being rude publicly. Exactly in this same thread you've accused me of being rude.

Furthermore, the mere fact that you accuse somebody of being rude without first giving the definition of being rude shows methodological deficiency.

You might also find this "We Aren’t the World" - http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacif...onomics-53135/ quite enlightening. Especially WRT applying your understanding of (not) being rude to representatives of other cultures.

2 members found this post helpful.

Dear Sergei,
As you have your mail blocked and you do not respond to the PMs, I'm making an exception and responding in this thread. My working definition of beeing rude on a multi-cultural forum like LQ is that a post is very likely to be rude if it has been reported as such by 2 separate persons. In this thread this condition has been met multiple times. To help you understand what other people think here's a short list of common patterns from this thread:
* suggesting that the OP has answer you questions - they do not have if they don't want to
* replying multiple times when you're ignored by the OP and other participants - they clearly do not want to respond and this is their choice
* suggesting an intention that the OP is going to recruit "clueless disciples"

This isn't the first time we can see the similar behaviour. Examples include:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi....php?p=3919086
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...4/#post4173050

LQ is a friendly site. It is friendly to people who are asking questions that seem obvious for more advanced Linux users. We are friendly for people who have strange ideas, Linux itself was one not that long ago.

I hope you can refrain from posting questinable comments. Please concentate on the technical issues, here you have much to give to LQ and much to get from it. If you want to continue this discussion, please use email or PMs.

Thanks to all

1 members found this post helpful.

Just out of curiosity, and I hope this question isn't too stupid: The part I can't quite get my head around is how this could be handled during a linux port.
I guess at some point you'd have to cross-compile, but probably your exe is not able to do that? So would the linux programmer have to go back to the roots of your development after all?

Another interesting question (in my mind) is how you would keep the windows version in sync with the linux version? Wouldn't they be so fundamentally different (code-wise) that there is a high risk of them drifting completely apart?
Or are you planning on dropping windows completely?

There are, of course, a number of ways to approach the problem. Personally, since I prefer working in the Plain English development environment, I would comment out the whole of the source on Windows and would then bring it back to life on Linux, a few lines at a time. More specifically, I would begin by modifying the compiler to produce a tiny Linux-compatible executable that did nothing but load and exit; that is, I would uncomment/modify just enough of the program (on Windows) to compile (to Linux) this Plain English statement:

To run:

Then I would uncomment/modify just enough additional code (on Windows) to compile my first "system call" to Linux, using this Plain English program as the source:

To run:
Buzz.

("Buzz" is the Plain English term for the simplest method of making a noise through the computer's speaker.)

Then I would uncomment/modify more code (on Windows) to compile a conditional statement in a source program like this:

To run:
Buzz.
If 1 equals 1, buzz.

Next I would uncomment/modify code (on Windows) to allocate a local variable and do some simple math, like this:

To run:
Buzz.
Add 1 to a count.
If the count is 1, buzz.
Add 1 to a count.
If the count is 2, buzz.

After that I would uncomment/modify enough code (on Windows) to compile a loop like this:

To run:
Buzz.
Add 1 to a count.
If the count is less than 3, repeat.

I would continue along this (rather tedious) path until I had a working Linux executable with the desktop, the file manager, the text editor, and enough of the compiler to re-compile itself. Free, at last, of Windows! The remainder of the program would then be restored to life on Linux alone.

And yes, this is more-or-less going back to the original roots of the program -- except that we're working in Plain English right from the start this time.

We'd like to drop Windows altogether. Our ultimate goal is not just to convert the program we now have, but to rewrite enough of the Linux kernel in Plain English so we'll have a complete operating system, compiler, and development environment coded in Plain English from top to bottom. That program, we believe, will be ideal for use in teaching kids all about computers -- from simple turtle graphics to, well, to the development of a complete operating system, compiler, and development environment.