DOCSLIB.ORG

A Ccnversational Extensible System for the Animation of Shaded Images(*)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Ccnversational Extensible System for the Animation of Shaded Images(*) A CCNVERSATIONAL EXTENSIBLE SYSTEM FOR THE ANIMATION OF SHADED IMAGES(*) by Ronald M. Baecker Dynamic Graphics Project, Computer Systems Research Group University of Torcnto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Abstract The terms "conversational" and "extensible" are defined and shown to be useful properties of computer animation systems. A conversational extensible system for the animation of shaded images is then described. With this system, implemented on a minicomputer, the animator can sketch images and movements freehand, or can define them algorithmically via the Smalltalk language. The system is itself implemented in Smalltalk, and hence can be easily extended or mcdified to suit the animator's personal style. (*) This work was supported primarily by the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. I. Introduction We shall now focus upon the second category cf systems. The strengths of GENESYS lay in the spontaneous, real time Computer animation consists of a interaction it facilitated, and in the variety cf techniques and processes in ccnceptualization of the computer animated which the computer is used as an aid in the film and the filmmaking process that it production of animated sequences [Halas 74, embodied. The heart of this Wein 74]. Computer animation systems can conceptualization was a duality between generally be classified as either image and movement, and a rich set of algorihmic or demonstrative [Tilson 75]. representations for movement and tools for the construction of movement. The ARTA and 1. Programming-language based systems Eurtnyk-Wein systems demonstrated the (Algorithmic systems) utility of various picture construction and transformation tools, including the ability EEFLIX [Knowlton 64], EXFLOR [Knowlton to interpolate between images (key frame 7C], and ZAPP (Guerin 73, Eaecker 76], animation). reuire the animator to describe a movie in a written programming language. These By 1969, one could identify several systems generally are not interactive; the major weaknesses in these systems: arimator is provided no direct visual feedback. 1. They were rigid, difficult to modify and extend. 2. Interactive systems based on freehand sketching (Demcnstrative systems) 2. The animator could draw images and movements, but could not compute them GENESYS [Eaecker 69a,69b,70a], ARTA directly; he had a fixed set of drawing [Mezei 71], and the Eurtnyk-Wein system commands, not an open-ended programming and [Eurtnyk 71a,71b] allow the animator to drawing system at his fingertips. sketch images and movements free-hand. These systems generally provide immediate 3. Image quality was poor, consisting of real time playback of the resulting movie. black-and-white dot and line drawings, lacking levels of tone, texture, and color. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work or personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Siggraph ’76, July 14-16 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 32 In the pericd 1969-1974, there were II. Cn Conversaticnality and Extensibility several useful developments addressing in Animation Systems these problems. Burtnyk and Wein focused upcn the problem of image quality [Burtnyk In concluding its discussion of 73], succeeding to the point that Peter picture-driven animation, and in motivating Fcldes was able to make his Cannes award- the design of the Animation and Picture winning film HUNGER [Foldes 74]. Richard Processing Language (APPL), Eaecker [69a] Shcup and Robert Flegal at the Xerox Palo noted: Alto Research Center (PARC) developed a rich color video system, and produced "We have seen that there are numerous striking examples of directly advantages and disadvantages to each of sketched or ccmputed color video [Shoup several approaches to the definition of 74]. In Alan Kay's Learning Research Group dynamic pictures--the construction of (IRG) at Xerox PARC, the Smalltalk language individual frames, the algorithmic was developed and shown to be a viable and generation of sequences of frames, and congenial host for the development of user- picture-driven animation. This suggests responsive programs [Kay 72,74; LRG 76]. that a flexible animation system would Experiments with freehand painting programs allow the harmonious blending of all these demonstrated the viability of black and techniques. Here GENESYS fails a priori, white TV generated by a minicomputer as a fcr it makes inaccessible the full medium for shaded drawings. Finally, the ccmputaticnal power of the computer. now legendary Pegasus-Cookie Monster movie within the language of GENESYS cne cannot produced using Steve Purcell's playback implement algorithms by writing programs. process (described below) demonstrated that We have also seen that GENESYS is this same hardware could be used for the inadequate because it presents the animator real time animation of these drawings. with a fixed set of commands and tools, with fixed mechanisms cf control, and with fixed models cf pictures and of processes these prior of picture construction. A suitably Thus, encouraged by skilled animator may himself determine by a previous developments, and guided these aspects cf his animation system, his 69a], until now vision [Baecker only if the system is unfulfilled, of what it would like to build arimation-machine, in an appropriate not a fixed set of commands but an arimation systems extensible, truly open-ended programming language, we developed a new animation system at the Xerox Palo Alto Research language." summer of 1974. This system Center in the design of APPI, and the construction of successfully incorporates Purcell's real The SHAZAM in Smalltalk, were intended to time shaded image animation capability into programming and drawing demonstrate the feasibility and LRG's Smalltalk attractiveness of unifying algorithmic and environment. SHAZAM (Smalltalk's sHaded is a demonstrative computer animation image Zippy Animated Moviemaker) in one system. (A similar animation capabilities demonstrative picture-driven goal is pursued by [de Fanti 73].) For this system modeled directly upon GENESYS Hence the tc be possible, APPL had to be (and [Eaecker 69a,69b,70a,74]. and know no Smalltalk. However, Smalltalk is) conversational animator need extensible. These terms are much used and the system was designed for children ages 8 are learning Smalltalk [Goldberg misused in the literature, so we shall now to 15 who define our use of them quite precisely. 74], and they can compute images and movements by executing Smalltalk commands A. Ccnversationality or by writing Smalltalk programs as easily as they can sketch them freehand. Furthermore, a skilled Smalltalk programmer The terms "conversational", "on-line", can extend or mcdify the system himself. and "interactive" are often used interchangeably when applied to computer We shall next define the terms systems. our usage shall be more "conversational" and "extensible", and restrictive. A conversational language is discuss the relevance of these language one in which: features to computer animation. These arguments constitute a concise and sharper 1. "Response time is proportional to the presentation of points originally made in demand for computation and, in particular, [Eaecker 69a]. Key aspects of the design there is rapid response tc trivial and implementation of SHAZAM will then be requests" [Standish 70]. presented; the relevance of ccnversaticnality and extensibility will be 2. The language is conveniently extendable, stressed, and some directions for future that is, program's may be written in the research proposed. same language with which cne expresses direct commands to the system, and they may be immediately tested. 3. The animation environment or data base is directly accessible at all times. 33 The response time criterion is Extensibility of operators, data important for computer animation because of structures, and regimes of control are the frequency with which animators make and relevant to computer graphics in general wish to preview the effect of small changes and to computer animation in particular tc their movies. Such changes typically [Eaecker 70b, Standish 70]. include speeding up or slowing down a motion, introducing or removing an object a A data definition facility in an split second earlier or later, and making extensible language enables the slight pcsitional changes to an object. specification of a composite data type Compiled languages operating in card- (data structure) built out of primitive oriented slcw-turnaround batch systems (the data types and/or other composite data antithesis of a conversational system) structures. The extended language must impede the animator's ability and desire to contain mechanisms for constructing members carry out such refinements to a movie. of the new class from suitable components (constructors), mechanism for selecting The extendibility criterion is distinguished components (selectors), and important for computer animation because mechanisms for testing if an arbitrary demonstrative systems rarely have the datum belongs to the new class perfect command set and the perfect (predicates). Standish [67] presented a interaction style for every animator. formalism and a methodology for augmenting Although a system can be changed even if a language with a data
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Early History of Smalltalk
    The Early History of Smalltalk http://www.accesscom.com/~darius/EarlyHistoryS... The Early History of Smalltalk Alan C. Kay Apple Computer [email protected]# Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission. HOPL-II/4/93/MA, USA © 1993 ACM 0-89791-571-2/93/0004/0069...$1.50 Abstract Most ideas come from previous ideas. The sixties, particularly in the ARPA community, gave rise to a host of notions about "human-computer symbiosis" through interactive time-shared computers, graphics screens and pointing devices. Advanced computer languages were invented to simulate complex systems such as oil refineries and semi-intelligent behavior. The soon-to- follow paradigm shift of modern personal computing, overlapping window interfaces, and object-oriented design came from seeing the work of the sixties as something more than a "better old thing." This is, more than a better way: to do mainframe computing; for end-users to invoke functionality; to make data structures more abstract. Instead the promise of exponential growth in computing/$/volume demanded that the sixties be regarded as "almost a new thing" and to find out what the actual "new things" might be. For example, one would compute with a handheld "Dynabook" in a way that would not be possible on a shared mainframe; millions of potential users meant that the user interface would have to become a learning environment along the lines of Montessori and Bruner; and needs for large scope, reduction in complexity, and end-user literacy would require that data and control structures be done away with in favor of a more biological scheme of protected universal cells interacting only through messages that could mimic any desired behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Smahtalk Kernel Language Fv1anual
    This document is for Xerox internal use only SmaHtalk Kernel Language fv1anual BY Larry Tesler SEPTEMBER 1977 Smalltalk is a programming rang'uage that deals with objects. Every object has its own data. Objects communicate by sending and receiving messages according to simple. protocols. Objects are grouped into classes. The objects of a class are called its instances. Each class specifies the protocols its instances will know as well as the methods they will use to respond to messages they receive.· The standard facilities of the Small talk system include i/o protocols for disk, display, keyboard, mouse, and Ethernet; basic data structures such as numbers, strings, arrays, and dictionaries; basic control structures such as loops and processes; program editing, compiling, and debugging; text editing, illustration, music. animation, and information storage and retrieval. Smalltalk applications include education, personal computing, and systems research. This interim reference manual covers the semantics and the present syntax of the Smalltalk kernel language. It is assumed that the reader has seen Smalltalk in operation and has programmed computers in Algol-like languages. Familiarity with LISP, Simula, and/or Smallta!k-72 should be helpful but is not necessary. System operation is described in the memo, Browsing and Error Analysis, available under separate cover from the Learning Research Group, Systems Science Laboratory. XEROX PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER 3333 Coyote Hill Road / Palo J\lto / California 94304 This document is for Xerox internal use only Discla inler The Smalltalk kernel system is not yet ready for general release. \Ve ask that you do not copy and distribute either the manual or the system at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with James Mitchell
    Interview with James Mitchell Interviewed by: David C. Brock Recorded February 19, 2019 Santa Barbara, CA CHM Reference number: X8963.2019 © 2019 Computer History Museum Interview with James Mitchell Brock: Yeah. So, yeah, maybe we can talk about your transition from Carnegie Mellon to PARC and how that opportunity came about, and what your thinking was about joining the new lab. Mitchell: I basically finished my PhD and left in July of 1970. I had missed graduation that year, so my diploma says 1971. But, in fact, I'd been out working for a year by then, and at PARC, you know, there were a number of other grad students I knew, and two of them had gone to work for a start-up in Berkeley that-- there were two Berkeley computer science departments, and the engineering one left to form this company called Berkeley Computer Corporation with Mel Pirtle running it and Butler Lampson kind of a chief technical officer and Chuck Thacker and so on, and anyway the people that I-- the two other grad students that had gone already that I knew, when I was going out, I was starting to go around and interview in early 1970 because I knew I was close to being finished, and it was in those days because there were so few people who had PhDs in computer science and every university was trying to build a department, and industrial research places like Bell Labs were trying to hire people and so on, anywhere you went with a new PhD you got an offer.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. with Examples of Different Programming Languages Show How Programming Languages Are Organized Along the Given Rubrics: I
    AGBOOLA ABIOLA CSC302 17/SCI01/007 COMPUTER SCIENCE ASSIGNMENT ​ 1. With examples of different programming languages show how programming languages are organized along the given rubrics: i. Unstructured, structured, modular, object oriented, aspect oriented, activity oriented and event oriented programming requirement. ii. Based on domain requirements. iii. Based on requirements i and ii above. 2. Give brief preview of the evolution of programming languages in a chronological order. 3. Vividly distinguish between modular programming paradigm and object oriented programming paradigm. Answer 1i). UNSTRUCTURED LANGUAGE DEVELOPER DATE Assembly Language 1949 FORTRAN John Backus 1957 COBOL CODASYL, ANSI, ISO 1959 JOSS Cliff Shaw, RAND 1963 BASIC John G. Kemeny, Thomas E. Kurtz 1964 TELCOMP BBN 1965 MUMPS Neil Pappalardo 1966 FOCAL Richard Merrill, DEC 1968 STRUCTURED LANGUAGE DEVELOPER DATE ALGOL 58 Friedrich L. Bauer, and co. 1958 ALGOL 60 Backus, Bauer and co. 1960 ABC CWI 1980 Ada United States Department of Defence 1980 Accent R NIS 1980 Action! Optimized Systems Software 1983 Alef Phil Winterbottom 1992 DASL Sun Micro-systems Laboratories 1999-2003 MODULAR LANGUAGE DEVELOPER DATE ALGOL W Niklaus Wirth, Tony Hoare 1966 APL Larry Breed, Dick Lathwell and co. 1966 ALGOL 68 A. Van Wijngaarden and co. 1968 AMOS BASIC FranÇois Lionet anConstantin Stiropoulos 1990 Alice ML Saarland University 2000 Agda Ulf Norell;Catarina coquand(1.0) 2007 Arc Paul Graham, Robert Morris and co. 2008 Bosque Mark Marron 2019 OBJECT-ORIENTED LANGUAGE DEVELOPER DATE C* Thinking Machine 1987 Actor Charles Duff 1988 Aldor Thomas J. Watson Research Center 1990 Amiga E Wouter van Oortmerssen 1993 Action Script Macromedia 1998 BeanShell JCP 1999 AngelScript Andreas Jönsson 2003 Boo Rodrigo B.
    [Show full text]
  • Smalltalk Solutions 2003 Report
    Smalltalk Solutions 2003, Toronto, 14 - 16 July 2003 1 Smalltalk Solutions 2003, Toronto, 14 - 16 July 2003 I spent the preceding weekend with friends at Oakville, 20 miles west along the lake from Toronto. It struck me as a very pleasant place; if Procor were hiring (see Val’s talk), I think a Smalltalker could do worse. A visit to the hockey hall of fame on Tuesday night was fun for the food and discussions. I also learned a little about hockey. My wife’s description of her schooldays had indicated that in English schools (where hockey is the standard girls’ game, as cricket and rugby are the boys’ games) it is played according to Clauswitzian principles; after you have destroyed the enemy team’s capacity to resist by wielding your sticks so as to maim or incapacitate several of them then you can score as many goals as you wish. (Joanne Rowling’s descriptions of quidditch matches gives the style; perhaps she played in a similar team in her schooldays.) However the hall of fame displays suggested that transatlantic hockey players used their sticks primarily on the ball rather than their fellow players. Cincom also stood us dinner on Monday and ice cream on Wednesday. Style In the text below, ‘I’ or ‘my’ refers to Niall Ross; speakers are referred to by name or in the third person. A question asked in or after a talk is prefaced by ‘Q.’ (occasionally I identify the questioner if it seems relevant). A question not prefaced by ‘Q.’ is a rhetorical question asked by the speaker (or is just my way of summarising their meaning).
    [Show full text]
  • Oral History of Larry Tesler, Part 1 of 3
    Oral History of Larry Tesler, part 1 of 3 Interviewed by: Hansen Hsu David C. Brock Recorded November 22, 2016 Mountain View, CA CHM Reference number: X8020.2017 © 2016 Computer History Museum Oral History of Larry Tesler Hsu: Right. So today is November 22. I am Hansen Hsu and this is David Brock, my co-interviewer and we are here with Larry Tesler, or Lawrence Tesler. Tesler: Larry. Hsu: <laughs> And who will be talking to us about his experience at Xerox PARC and about Smalltalk. So we’re going to start maybe with right before that part of the story with your experiences at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. So how did you—how did you start there? You were working as a consultant? You had your consultancy job practice and you were contracted to work at SAIL at some point? Tesler: Yeah, when I was in college at Stanford. I started a little consulting company. At first it was just me, but at the high point I had four employees, mostly students, and for some of them their first job. They were still in school, so was I. One of my clients after I graduated was Ken Colby up at the A.I. Lab, and he was a psychiatrist who had developed an interest in using computers as an adjunct in therapy, and he hired—he had hired some friends of mine as employees, and when they heard I was out of college and available for consulting they suggested he bring me in to complement the others. I had a strong interest in natural language technologies and one of my clients had been the head of the linguistics department at Stanford.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing the Smalltalk-80 System, August 1981, BYTE Magazine
    Introducing the Sntalltalk-80 Systelll Adele Goldberg Manager, Learning Research Group Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Rd Palo Alto CA 94304 It is rare when one can indulge in one's prejudices with relativ e impunity, poking a bit of good humored fun to make a point. ith this statement, W Carl Helmers opened his remarks in the · "About the Cover" section of the August 1978 issue of BYTE. The issue was a special on the language Pascal, so Helmers took of the opportunity to present Pascal's triangle as drawn cover design presents by artist Robert Tinney. ust such an opportuni­ The primary allegory of t depicts the clouds the cover was' the inver­ clearing from around sion of the Bermuda the kingdom of Small talk, Triangle myth to show and, with banners stream­ smooth waters within the ing, the Small talk system area labeled " Pascal's is taking flight into the Triangle ." In explaining mainstream of the com­ the allegory, Helmers puter programming com­ g uided the traveler munity. This cover was through the FORTRAN also executed by Robert Ocean, the BASIC Sea, Tinney, to the delight of around the Isle of BAL, and up to the Land of Small talk. the Learning Research Group (LRG ) of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. LRG is the group that has de­ Trav eling upward (in the picture) through heavy seas signed, implemented, and evaluated several generations w e come to the pinnacle, a snow white island rising like of Small talk over the past ten years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early History of Smalltalk Introduction
    acm | http://gagne.homedns.org/%7etgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html 1993 The Early History of Smalltalk Alan C. Kay Abstract Most ideas come from previous ideas. The sixties, particularly in the com- munity, gave rise to a host of notions about “human-computer symbiosis” through interactive time-shared computers, graphics screens and pointing devices. Advanced computer languages were invented to simulate complex systems such as oil refineries and semi-intelligent behavior. The soon-to-follow paradigm shift of modern per- sonal computing, overlapping window interfaces, and object-oriented design came from seeing the work of the sixties as something more than a “better old thing.” This is, more than a better way: to do mainframe computing; for end-users to in- voke functionality; to make data structures more abstract. Instead the promise of exponential growth in computing volume demanded that the sixties be regarded as “almost a new thing” and to find out what the actual “new things” might be. For example, one would computer with a handheld “Dynabook” in a way that would not be possible on a shared mainframe; millions of potential users meant that the user interface would have to become a learning environment along the lines of Montessori and Bruner; and needs for large scope, reduction in complexity, and end-user literacy would require that data and control structures be done away with in favor of a more biological scheme of protected universal cells interacting only through messages that could mimic any desired behavior. Early Smalltalk was the first complete realization of these new points of view as parented by its many predecessors in hardware, language and user interface design.
    [Show full text]
  • Apple Confidential 2.0 the Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful
    vi Reviewers love Apple Confidential “The Apple story itself is here in all its drama.” New York Times Book Review “An excellent textbook for Apple historians.” San Francisco Chronicle “Written with humor, respect, and care, it absolutely is a must-read for every Apple fan.” InfoWorld “Pretty much irresistible is the only way to describe this quirky, highly detailed and illustrated look at the computer maker’s history.” The Business Reader Review “The book is full of basic facts anyone will appreciate. But it’s also full of interesting extras that Apple fanatics should love.” Arizona Republic “I must warn you. This 268-page book is hard to put down for a MacHead like me, and probably you too.” MacNEWS “You’ll love this book. It’s a wealth of information.” AppleInsider “Rife with gems that will appeal to Apple fanatics and followers of the computer industry.” Amazon.com “Mr. Linzmayer has managed to deliver, within the confines of a single book, just about every juicy little tidbit that was ever leaked from the company.” MacTimes “The most entertaining book about Apple yet to be published.” Booklist i …and readers love it too! “Congratulations! You should be very proud. I picked up Apple Confidential and had a hard time putting it down. Obviously, you invested a ton of time in this. I hope it zooms off the shelves.” David Lubar, Nazareth, PA “I just read Apple Confidentialfrom cover to cover…you have written a great book!” Jason Whong, Rochester, NY “There are few books out there that reveal so much about Apple and in such a fun and entertaining manner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Smalltalk from Smalltalk-72 Through Squeak
    The Evolution of Smalltalk From Smalltalk-72 through Squeak DANIEL INGALLS, Independent Consultant, USA Shepherd: Andrew Black, Portland State University, USA This paper presents a personal view of the evolution of six generations of Smalltalk in which the author played a part, starting with Smalltalk-72 and progressing through Smalltalk-80 to Squeak and Etoys. It describes the forces that brought each generation into existence, the technical innovations that characterized it, and the growth in understanding of object-orientation and personal computing that emerged. It summarizes what that generation achieved and how it affected the future, both within the evolving group of developers and users, and in the outside world. The early Smalltalks were not widely accessible because they ran only on proprietary Xerox hardware; because of this, few people have experience with these important historical artifacts. To make them accessible, the paper provides links to live simulations that can be run in present-day web browsers. These simulations offer the ability to run predefined scripts, but also allow the user to go off-script, browse thedetailsof implementation, and try anything that could be done in the original system. An appendix includes anecdotal and technical aspects of how examples of each generation of Smalltalk were recovered, and how order was teased out of chaos to the point that these old systems could be brought back to life. CCS Concepts: · Software and its engineering → General programming languages; · Social and pro- fessional topics → History of programming languages. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Smalltalk, Squeak, Alto, NoteTaker, OOZE, BitBlt, Morphic, EToys, Objects, Blocks, Bytecode, Interpreter, Virtual Machine, Bootstrap 85 ACM Reference Format: Daniel Ingalls.
    [Show full text]
  • Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns
    Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns Kent Beck Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beck, Kent. Smalltalk best practice patterns / Kent Beck. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 0-13-476904-X (pbk.) 1. Smalltalk (Computer program language) I. Title. QA76.73.S59B43 1997 005.13’3--dc20 96-29411 CIP Editorial/Production Supervision: Joe Czerwinski Acquisitions Editor: Paul Becker Manufacturing Manager: Alexis R. Heydt Cover Design Director: Jerry Votta Cover Design: Design Source ©1997 by Prentice Hall PTR Prentice-Hall, Inc. A Division of Simon and Schuster Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 The publisher offers discounts on this book when ordered in bulk quantities. For more information, contact: Corporate Sales Department Prentice Hall PTR One Lake Street Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 Phone: 800-382-3419 Fax: 201-236-7141 E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN: 0-13-476904-X Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, London Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney Prentice-Hall of Canada Inc., Toronto Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana, S.A., Mexico Prentice-Hall of India Pte. Ltd., New Delhi Prentice-Hall of Japan, Inc., Tokyo Simon & Schuster Asia Pte. Ltd., Singapore Editora Prentice-Hall do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeiro Contents PREFACE . vii 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 CODING . 1 Talking Programs . 3 GOOD SOFTWARE. 4 STYLE . 6 WHAT’S MISSING? . 7 BOOK ORGANIZATION . 9 ADOPTION . 9 LEARNING A PATTERN .
    [Show full text]
  • Oral History of Adele Goldberg
    Oral History of Adele Goldberg Interviewed by: John Mashey Recorded: May 10, 2010 Mountain View, California CHM Reference number: X5823.2010 © 2010 Computer History Museum Adele Goldberg Oral History John Mashey: Okay, so Adele, let’s start all the way back. You’re from Chicago originally, is that correct? Adele Goldberg: No, I was born in Cleveland, Ohio. Mashey: Oh, okay, oh. Goldberg: We moved to Chicago when I was eleven and then I was in Chicago until I went to college. Then I went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. And then I went back to Chicago for graduate school at the University of Chicago. Mashey: What were you studying as an undergraduate? Goldberg: So I studied mathematics and I was actually in Ann Arbor for a total of three and a half years. The first half of my senior year I left in the Spring to go to Europe. I was accepted at the university in Munich. It wasn’t junior year abroad, but the people who were running the program were supposed to arrange housing and didn’t. So when I got there I spent a of couple weeks looking for housing and I said, “You know forget it. I’m going to go enjoy Europe.” So I went all over Europe and up to England and way north and ended up in Israel and then came back to the United States in the Fall. Everywhere I went there was an IBM building and I had been pondering what was I going to do with this math degree because originally I was doing it to teach high school math, which is what my mother was trained to do.
    [Show full text]