On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:57:58 +0200, Howard Stearns wrote:
...cut away many interesting details...
> (For my part, my faith in the religion of classes has been shaken over  
> the last year and a half, and I'm toying with converting to  
> prototype/delegationism.

Hhm, same toy that I have here for about a year and a half or so ;-) But  
there is a way for class religion and prototype/delegationism to coexist  
(compiler already works here, in Squeak). Further to self includes:  
Smalltalk, Smalltalk includes: self :)

> This makes it easier for different objects in the same application to  
> implement versions of behaviors. But I don't know yet how this all fits  
> together with enforcing, e.g., capabilities.)

Yes, problem class does not change, because of the aforementioned mutual  
implication.

...
> Ensuring "enough resources" is a "hard problem." ("Here's a Turing  
> machine," said the professor to the student. "Please make sure there's  
> enough tape in it to run this program. But don't run the program first.")

No problem if that problem where in NP-complete. But it apparently isn't,  
for example it can be reduced to Turing's halting problem.

> I think it's pretty clear that I feel that asking users to pick limits  
> (configure the tape) isn't going to get you anywhere.
...hhm, and I thought that:
>> But the physical "hard" limits of computer systems are  
>> indistinguishable from "soft" (administrated) limits. There is no  
>> difference observable by any piece of software of any kind.

Howard, this was an interesting discussion. Take care with the  
capabilities (they are fragile) and may you never run out of Turing tape  
8-)

/Klaus