Justin Walsh wrote:
>
> I tend to want to agree with you: kill off Kens analogy but, there  must
be
> something significant in that an ordinary, commonse person like Ken  would
> use (imply) such analogies: domination and Darwinian survival of the
> fittest, assumptions like mammaliam superiority over dinosaurs,
development
> etc (when dinosaurs had attained intelligence and flight). Perhaps I've
> missed the irony?
> I don't like the idea of Squeak becoming merely a popular rabies infected
> rodent.
> Anyway if there has to be a battle at all, I prefer it be in the realm of
> mere abstract ideas and computer simulation than in concrete.  Tragicaly
it
> doesn't end there.
>

I used to believe that programming languages could compete and succeed in
the realm of abstract ideas. I've seen too many good languages die and too
many bad languages succeed to maintain that belief. Economics, social,
psychological, and ecological factors, and marketing seem to matter more.

> This extract was published in 1781. It influenced Dewey and Piaget who in
> turn influenced Alan Kay.
> Unfortunately very few have properly studied him or even Alan Kay for that
> matter.
>
I read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason about 25 years ago and don't see the
relevance. Please elaborate.

On the topic of pre-computational philosophers, Liebnitz's monads seem have
some connection with object-oriented programming.

Best,

-ken kahn ( www.toontalk.com )