Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message Oriented"
ute force is used here (Ted executes all the methods that could fit > in the system safely to see what they do.) > > One of the solutions at PARC for dealing with a part of the problem is the > idea of "send an agent, not a message". It was quickly found that defining > file formats for all the different things that could be printed on the new > laser printer was not scaling well. The solution was to send a program that > would just execute safely and blindly in the printer -- the printer would > then just print out the bit bin. This was known as PostScript when it came > out in the world. > > The "Trickles" idea from Cornell has much of the same flavor. > > One possible starting place is to notice that there are lots more terms that > people can use than the few that are needed to make a powerful compact > programming language. So why not try to describe meanings and match on > meanings -- and let there be not just matching (which is like a password) but > "negotiation", which is what a discovery agent does. > > And so forth. I think this is a difficult but doable problem -- it's easier > than AI, but has some tinges of it. > > Got any ideas? > > Cheers, > > Alan > > > > > From: Jeff Gonis > >To: Alan Kay > >Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing > >Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:33 AM > >Subject: Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message Oriented" > > > > > >I see no one has taken Alan's bait and asked the million dollar question: if > >you decided that messaging is no longer the right path for scaling, what > >approach are you currently using? > >I would assume that FONC is the current approach, meaning, at the risk of > >grossly over-simplifying and sounding ignorant, "problem oriented languages" > >allowing for compact expression of meaning. But even here, FONC struck me > >as providing vastly better ways of creating code that, at its core, still > >used messaging for robustness, etc, rather than using something entirely > >different. > >Have I completely misread the FONC projects? And if not messaging, what > >approach are you currently using to handle scalability? > >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 ... > > > > > >Cheers, > > > > > > > >Alan > > > > > > > >> > >> From: Brian Rice > >>To: Fundamentals of New Computing > >>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:54 AM > >>Subject: Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message Oriented" > >> > >> > >>Independently of the originally-directed historical intent, I'll pose my > >>own quick perspective. > >> > >>Perhaps a contrast with Steve Yegge's Kingdom of Nouns essay would help: > >>http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html > >> > >> > >> > >>The modern post-Erlang sense of message-oriented computing has to do with > >>messages with structure and pattern-matching, where error-handling isn't > >>about sequential, nested access, but more about independent structures > >>dealing with untrusted noise. > >> > >> > >>Anyway, treating the messages as first-class objects (in the Lisp sense) is > >>what gets you there: > >>http://www.erlang.org/doc/getting_started/conc_prog.html > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Loup Vaillant > >>wrote: > >> > >>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 clear that you were mainly about messages, not > >>>classes. My model of you even says that Erlang is far more OO than Java. > >>> > >>>Then why did you chose the term "object" instead of "message" in the > >>>first place? Was there a specific reason for your preference, or did > >>>you simply not bother foreseeing any terminology issue? (20/20 hindsight > >>>and such.) > >>> > >>>Bonus question: if you had choose "message" instead, do you think it > >>>would have been hijacked too? > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Loup. > >>> > >>> > >>>[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205976 > >>> (This is for reference, you don't really need to read it.) > >>>___ > >>>fonc mailing list > >>>fonc@vpri.org > >>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>-Brian T. Rice > >>___ > >>fonc mailing list > >>fonc@vpri.org > >>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >> > >> > >> > >___ > >fonc mailing list > >fonc@vpri.org > >http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > > > > > -- []'s Thiago Silva http://www.metareload.com "We are either doing something or we are not; 'talking about' is a subset of 'not'." ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Alan Kay talk at HPI in Potsdam
On Monday 25 July 2011 11:03:57 Igor Stasenko wrote: > But i think this is a general problem of software evolution. No matter > how hard you try, you cannot foresee all kinds of interactions, > features and use cases for your system, when you designing it from the > beginning. > Because 20 years ago, systems has completely different requirements, > comparing to today's ones. So, what was good enough 20 years ago, > today is not very good. > And here the problem: is hard to radically change the software, > especially core concepts, because everyone using it, get used to it , > because it made standard. > So you have to maintain compatibility and invent workarounds , patches > and fixes on top of existing things, rather than radically change the > landscape. Now, why is it hard to radically change the software? Is it the failure to foresee all kinds of interactions that creates the problems? Maybe is not what we are leaving behind in the design of the solution, but what the design assumes (whether we are aware or not): the hundreds and hundreds of little assumptions that have no relation with the actual solution description... Take imperative instructions: when writing a solution in an imperative language, we are imposing chronological order to the instructions even when that particular ordering is not a requirement of the solution. So, we are not called up to change the software when the solution changes. We are called up when something, anything changes and breaks any of the assumptions carried by the software. We seem to be writing software that doesn't appear to be so soft... Cheers, Thiago ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Alan Kay talk at HPI in Potsdam
Hello Dr. Alan, Since access to fonc list archives is closed to members, would you allow me to publish your email below elsewhere for public access? It is the most rich and informative critique I've found about the web (plus the non-authoring nature of the browser you've mentioned before). Cheers, Thiago On Sunday 24 July 2011 14:24:20 Alan Kay wrote: > Hi Marcel > > I think I've already said a bit about the Web on this list -- mostly about > the complete misunderstanding of the situation the web and browser > designers had. > > > All the systems principles needed for a good design were already extant, > but I don't think they were known to the designers, even though many of > them were embedded in the actual computers and operating systems they > used. > > The simplest way to see what I'm talking about is to notice the many-many > things that could be done on a personal computer/workstation that couldn't > be done in the web & browser running on the very same personal > computer/workstation. There was never any good reason for these > differences. > > Another way to look at this is from the point of view of "separation of > concerns". A big question in any system is "how much does 'Part A' have to > know about 'Part B' (and vice versa) in order to make things happen?" The > web and browser designs fail on this really badly, and have forced set > after set of weak conventions into larger and larger, but still weak > browsers and, worse, onto zillions of web pages on the net. > > > Basically, one of the main parts of good systems design is to try to find > ways to finesse safe actions without having to know much. So -- for > example -- Squeak runs everywhere because it can carry all of its own > resources with it, and the OS processes/address-spaces allow it to run > safely, but do not have to know anything about Squeak to run it. Similarly > Squeak does not have to know much to run on every machine - just how to > get events, a display buffer, and to map its file conventions onto the > local ones. On a bare machine, Squeak *is* the OS, etc. So much for old > ideas from the 70s! > > The main idea here is that a windowing 2.5 D UI can compose views from many > sources into a "page". The sources can be opaque because they can even do > their own rendering if needed. Since the sources can run in protected > address-spaces their actions can be confined, and "we" the mini-OS running > all this do not have to know anything about them. This is how apps work on > personal computers, and there is no reason why things shouldn't work this > way when the address-spaces come from other parts of the net. There would > then be no difference between "local" and "global" apps. > > Since parts of the address spaces can be externalized, indexing as rich > (and richer) to what we have now still can be done. > > And so forth. > > The Native Client part of Chrome finally allows what should have been done > in the first place (we are now about 20+ years after the first web > proposals by Berners-Lee). However, this approach will need to be adopted > by most of the already existing multiple browsers before it can really be > used in a practical way in the world of personal computing -- and there > are signs that there is not a lot of agreement or understanding why this > would be a good thing. > > > The sad and odd thing is that so many people in the computer field were so > lacking in "systems consciousness" that they couldn't see this, and failed > to complain mightily as the web was being set up and a really painful > genii was being let out of the bottle. > > As Kurt Vonnegut used to say "And so it goes". > > Cheers, > > Alan > > > > > From: Marcel Weiher > To: Fundamentals of New Computing > Cc: Alan Kay > Sent: Sun, July 24, 2011 5:39:26 AM > Subject: Re: [fonc] Alan Kay talk at HPI in Potsdam > > > Hi Alan, > > as usual, it was inspiring talking to your colleagues and hearing you speak > at Potsdam. I think I finally got the Model-T image, which resonated with > my fondness for Objective-C: a language that a 17 year old with no > experience with compilers or runtimes can implement and that manages to > boil down dynamic OO/messaging to a single special function can't be all > bad :-) > > There was one question I had on the scaling issue that would not have > fitted in the Q&A: while praising the design of the Internet, you spoke > less well of the World Wide Web, which surprised me a bit. Can you > elaborate? > > Thanks, > > Marcel > > > > On Jul 22, 2011, at 6:29 , Alan Kay wrote: > > To All, > > >This wound up being a talk to several hundred students, so most of the > >content is about "ways to think about things", with just a little about > >scaling and STEPS at the end. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Alan ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Software and Motivation
On Friday 18 February 2011 20:30:56 Casey Ransberger wrote: > It got me thinking about an interview I saw on the tubes that Alan did on > collective cognition, where he mentioned a list of human motivators that > anthropologists had identified. Does anyone know where a list like that > might be found? Maybe in a book or a research paper with a title like > _? > It seems a reference to "human universals". There is a book with this title by anthropologist Donald Brown. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Code Bubbles
Watching the demo of this project reminded me of a draft of a proposal I wrote last year, with the goal of exploring self-documentation, threating source code as hypertext (I was reading a lot on Engelbart's NLS, Ted Nelson, Intentional Software and Symbolics Genera at the time). For instance, I was missing the possibility to do things like gathering a bunch of related code on the screen (regardless of "files" or any kind of namespaces they might belong to), perhaps hyperlink them, write some explaining text (or mix with drawings, animations, ...), and using that screen as something like a squeak project. That was pretty much what I saw in the demo of codebubbles. I was mainly attracted to the idea of having a few of these "projects", each representing a given point of view of a subsystem or aspect of the software, hyperlinked and all, to create some kind of narrative to help explain and explore the inner workings of the software (as opposed to be exposed to the usual directory tree with a bunch of source files, or the class browser with a bunch of classes, where we end up having trouble figuring out where to start, how things relate and collaborate or what they actually mean). -- Thiago Silva Computer Science M.Sc. Candidate at Federal University of Pernambuco jabber/gtalk: tsi...@jabber-br.org http://blog.sourcecraft.info On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Andrey Fedorov wrote: > Reminds me of Squeak. Great for reading code, but still needs a bit of > innovation on how to "visually" edit code. > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Figuring out what you all want to hear
Hi John, On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, John Zabroski wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > I didn't know you ran sourcecraft. You used to have a video of a talk Ian > Piumarta gave sometime around 2007. Do you still have it on local disk? > I believe you're referring to the following talk: http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/070214.html my backup got corrupted and I couldn't recover that particular video, but google was of help. I've been able to play the stream using the following urls: http://lang.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/070214/070214-ee380-300.wmv mms://lang.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/070214/070214-ee380-300.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf Also, I've just found it on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn7kTPbW6QQ this talk made a profound impression in me. -- Thiago Silva Computer Science M.Sc. Candidate at Federal University of Pernambuco jabber/gtalk: tsi...@jabber-br.org http://blog.sourcecraft.info ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Figuring out what you all want to hear
Hello John, you might be interested in the following transcript of the '97 oopsla speech: http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html I also have some material in my disks. Doing a little scanning on jecel's list and my own, I think I've found 3 other speeches of Alan: The Ceremony of Awarding the Honorary Doctorate of Kyoto University to Dr. Alan Kay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxXk9IUs6Q Program for the future (Andries Van Dam and Alan Kay on Engelbart's vision) https://admin.adobe.acrobat.com/_a295153/p99875217/ How Simply and Understandably Could The "Personal Computing Experience" Be Programmed? http://irbseminars.intel-research.net/AlanKay.wmv -- Thiago Silva Computer Science M.Sc. Candidate at Federal University of Pernambuco jabber/gtalk: tsi...@jabber-br.org http://blog.sourcecraft.info On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:41 PM, John Zabroski wrote: > Folks, > > I am going to take a break from the previous thread of discussion. Instead, > it seems like most people need a tutorial in how to think BIG. > > One person in the last thread asked me how I would design a language in > light of what I know about programming language theory, with questions > ranging all over the subject of how to design languages and how to pick the > right language. I get e-mailed questions like this surprisingly often, such > that I want to eventually publish a FAQ on these things. > > However, I think before I do that, people should be much more intimately > familiar with Alan Kay, Ian Piumarta, and their ideas. > > What I am going to do is gather together a list of Alan's speeches and > interviews and any published media about him I can get my hands on and > assembly it into a wiki, the wik-kay. > > If you're interested in helping, let me know. I am going to start by fully > transcribing Alan Kay's 1997 OOPSLA speech The Computer Revolution Hasn't > Happened Yet, since I've watched it about 20 times so far and am surprised > I've not transfered it to text for faster consumption and easier quoting. > I'll probably hopefully set-up an Etherpad server so people can help > collaborative transcribe this with me (Google Wave is pure garbage at these > kinds of tasks, but Etherpad is the bomb-diggity). > > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] My visit to VPRI
Hello Michael, thank you for sharing this. On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Michael FIG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I understood is that the researchers are encouraged to go out in > all directions (of course, there are also deadlines to be able to > demonstrate an aspect of the system to an interested third party). > Even if there are failures, and many throwaway prototypes, they are > looking for the "miracles" that are expected to bridge the gap between > the computer hardware and the user experience with powerful and > reusable ideas. > Is there anything that could be shared/discussed about the "miracles" at this point? I really would like to know what is known about them (and what is not), possible directions for experimentation, etc. Any thoughts? Thiago Silva ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
