Alan Kay wrote:
> Just for "years ending in zero" purposes (imagine if we had no thumbs)
> ... but, yes. Maybe time for a new paradigm?
 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.

 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.

brad

>
> 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.)