This question was prompted by a quote by Joe Armstrong about OOP[1].
It is for Alan Kay, but I'm totally fine with a relevant link. Also,
I don't know and I don't have time for this are perfectly okay.
Alan, when the term Object oriented you coined has been hijacked by
Java and Co, you made
Hi Loup
I think how this happened has already been described in The Early History of
Smalltalk.
But
In the Fall of 1966, Sketchpad was what got me started thinking about
representing concepts as whole things. Simula, a week later, provided a
glimpse of how one could deal with issues
Dude…. You said shiny objects….Lol.
Messaging certainly seems to have a larger focus with multi-core, many-core,
and cloud computing concepts (that itself is morphing into shiny objects).
I also enjoy these history lessons and discussions.
John
From: David Hussman
Alan Kay a écrit :
Hi Loup
I think how this happened has already been described in The Early
History of Smalltalk.
But
[Incredibly detailed and thoughtful response]
Whoa. Thank you.
Loup
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
Hi!
On 02/12/2013 04:15 PM, Loup Vaillant wrote:
This question was prompted by a quote by Joe Armstrong about OOP[1].
Sidenote, the article Joe wrote on OO which I subsequently bashed:
http://goran.krampe.se/2009/06/26/joe-is-wrong/
...but I met him later and he knows OO quite well these
Alan Kay wrote:
A little more history ...
The first Smalltalk (-72) was modern (as used below), and similar to
Erlang in several ways -- for example, messages were received with
structure and pattern matching, etc. The language was extended using
the same mechanisms ...
Alan,
As I recall,
Hi Jeff
I think intermodule communication schemes that *really scale* is one of the
most important open issues of the last 45 years or so.
It is one of the several pursuits written into the STEPS proposal that we
didn't use our initial efforts on -- so we've done little to advance this over
Hi Miles
(Again The Early History of Smalltalk has some of this history ...)
It is unfair to Carl Hewitt to say that Actors were his reaction to
Smalltalk-72 (because he had been thinking early thoughts from other
influences). And I had been doing a lot of thinking about the import of his
Hi Alan,
Is it fair to say that the path you took with Smalltalk led to today's
object model of data structures, associated methods, and inheritance,
with either a single thread-of-control, or small numbers of threads;
while the Actor model led (perhaps not directly) to massive concurrency
John Carlson wrote:
Is there a computer language (yes I realize games do this) that work
like human languages? With features like misdirection,
misinterpretation, volume, persuasion? Can we come up with a social
language for computers? No, I'm not talking lojban, I'm talking
something
Although I have read very little about the design of the web, things are
starting to gel in my mind. At the lowest level lies the static or
declarative part of the web. The html, dom, xml and json are the main
languages used in the declarative part. Layered on top of this is the
dynamic or
11 matches
Mail list logo
