Brad,

=======================
I always thought how objects communicated to be interesting. I think of
water or air as both a way to touch, communicate and connect with other
objects, and at the same time, a carrier of objects to remote
destinations. There is just something wonderful about the flow between
real-life objects. Water can exist in many forms and it can carry
objects to many places - it has a way of getting in the way of humans;
and it's hard to control, no matter how hard we try... certainly more
redundant than the Internet!

Same with air, it can carry sound waves that could be music or noise -
of which the quality is listener dependent :-) It can have disastrous
effects too - like carrying deadly spores.
=======================

Common internet protocols carry malware, and even the occasional
Microsoft service pack =:0


=======================
So, while I think encapsulated objects in software design is productive
and fun, I don't think we spend enough time inventing new ways to
communicate between objects. Or, at least I don't spend enough time
thinking about it. Most likely, I'm naive about it.
=======================

Far be it from me to call another Smalltalker naive.  It might help to
think of the way atoms and molecules interact, which (chemically at
least) is via electron clouds, and a few other field effects.  All of
the other stuff is higher level, which one would model using objects and
messages vs. extending the VM and details of message sending - at least
IMHO.

With that said, note the following:
   
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.html

which puts you in good company.

Bill



Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bills at anest4.anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029