On Aug 30, 2007, at 5:21 AM, Alan Kay wrote:

> But consider the Internet as a real object oriented system ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> -------------
>

I knew that you would say that.
I wrote a sentence in a previous post: "but Alan Kay would consider  
this a step backward. Not a step forward". But than I said no, I'll  
not send that.

And I always had in mind your voice saying: "no no no: It's not what  
I have in mind."

on the other hand ....

On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:05 PM, Alan Kay wrote:
>
> And so would pipes. They provide a syntactical way of writing very  
> useful sequences of processing that is much nicer than functional  
> application syntax (which gives a difficult to read "backwards  
> view"), and Haskell did absolutely the right thing in making an  
> operator for this.

With objects AND the pipe we could have some of the qualities of an  
extensional system (features for free, less bloat) while keeping  
internet as real object oriented system (a rich system).
Some times a dumb object might be alright: for example when  
developing services, for instance when there is the need to talk with  
others (non-Smalltalk) as in real-life this happens.
Many times a rich object can do better: to get out rich media.

Do you see the pipe as useful or it is against object orientation ?  
It's not very clear to me what is your opinion on this matter, and it  
very important to me.

I think it's better to have it. At least I can have a choice. Rich  
object oriented system as often as possible. But practicality when  
practicality matters most.

Fabio