Kind of always wished Alan Kay had spent some time playing with LambdaMOO back in the day. I know he was aware of it, but I think if he had really dug into it he would have dug it.
In a system like that, prototype OO makes so much sense. Objects are embodied "things" in the world. You can literally walk up to a "prototype" and touch it, move it, etc and dynamically inspect it (much like you'd do in Self, but in a form which is more narrative). And when you make things, you are building them on the basis of the other things, so.
Kay, Ingalls', etc work was really focused on getting pictures on the screen, and "objects" also made a lot of sense there.
I think the subsequent uses of object-orientation... everywhere else... and their conflation everywhere with (static) types ... has been problematic. I don't like the mixture of the C++/Java static early binding system with class hierarchies. At all.
In a system like that, prototype OO makes so much sense. Objects are embodied "things" in the world. You can literally walk up to a "prototype" and touch it, move it, etc and dynamically inspect it (much like you'd do in Self, but in a form which is more narrative). And when you make things, you are building them on the basis of the other things, so.
Kay, Ingalls', etc work was really focused on getting pictures on the screen, and "objects" also made a lot of sense there.
I think the subsequent uses of object-orientation... everywhere else... and their conflation everywhere with (static) types ... has been problematic. I don't like the mixture of the C++/Java static early binding system with class hierarchies. At all.