> thumbs) ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm?
We have a chance to let Object Orientation be the last paradigm,
 and focus on understanding/teaching the limits of the OO method
 and promote people to use senses to know the concecuences
 of the application of the method.
Imho, all efforts done on children are good but not enough if
 adults do not consider the concecuences of application
 of object orientation (childs grow, but to become adults...
     adapted to anAdult by instruction).
We all have in Smalltalk a support to understand, learn and
 promote activities where the limits of formal development
 are exposed and a chance to see more than a language (or
 formula/design).
There has been a huge investment in promoting smalltalk
 as a medium to take a new path in systems development (and
 understanding), but imo, from the very first papers (like "The
 design principles behing Smalltalk") upto today, the
 use of smalltalk as an open system has not been promoted
 (social constrains?).
Under this consideration, I see that smalltalk has overpassed
 it designer´s limits, and most of the people using it are not
 working on the new ways of acting in an open system.
Most of the efforts are put on formal and atomicist formulations
 (I think that it may be related with newcommers of
  smalltalk community).
A new paradigm can be formulated, using or negating
 objects/messages, but I think that it will be another
 formula/idea that will promote new ideals e.g. will
 hide the limits of The Method (again).
To not to repeat the same as usual is also an option,
 but requires to be free (most people expect a new formula
 to be repeated/promoted).
cheers,
Ale.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Kay" <alan.kay at squeakland.org>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>; "The general-purpose Squeak
developers list" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: Squackers, Tenth-Birthday-of-Squeak edition - Fireworks!!


> Just for "years ending in zero" purposes (imagine if we had no
> thumbs) ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> At 01:53 PM 10/2/2006, Brad Fuller wrote:
> >Alan Kay wrote:
> > > And, for whatever it's worth, the 40th anniversary of "the shock of
> > > objects" (at least to me) will be Nov 11th this year.
> >Alan,
> >AFAIK, 1966 you were in graduate school. Are you referring to your ideas
> >of utilizing the ability of self-repairing, recursive biological cells
> >to software objects? (Of which, I still find the origins of that idea
> >fascinating.)
> >
> >--
> >brad fuller
> >www.bradfuller.com
> >www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184
>
>