
Discussing OOP with Alan Kay right now on my blog - yegor256a
http://www.yegor256.com/2017/12/12/alan-kay-was-wrong.html
======
signa11
the discussion on the page itself is amazing :) from THE _dude_ himself:

> The basic misunderstanding here is between what I meant as objects and what
> the term has been turned into. The main one was that the intent was to have
> the interior of objects be a system of objects. I.e. "objects" and "modules"
> are the same thing. This harmonizes with the compositional ideas above.

> Another misunderstanding was the idea of objects as "data types" or as
> "operators" (both of which can be done by virtue of an object being
> semantically a whole computer). But we really thought about objects as "loci
> of goal satisfactions" and that the best messages would be to request goals
> and the best objects would be those who can satisfy "large goals".

> The universality of objects could be used to make every part, with the aim
> to get stronger semantically as more comprehensive objects were made. Some
> of the precursor ideas here were "systems theory" (Bertalanfy, Alexander,
> etc.), programming as "constraint solving" (Sketchpad), etc.

> In practice, we did a lot less during the Parc period because of some of the
> resource constraints of the 70s. Still, it was clear that composition was
> almost always better than inheritances, and that recursive systems of name
> spaces was better than the more "Lisp-like" architecture we used for
> references, etc.

