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,
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
r 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 ne
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 fou
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).
Che
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 ag
;>
> >>>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
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 l
