Are you sure about this? (I haven't read the article yet) - I am asking because what you are describing looks to me closer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple_space than "traditional" OOP.
It is more than a bit wooshy. The 'solid' parts are all "biology", "mathematics", etc.
Alan Kay is, of course, correct that nature provides excellent guidance on how to build resilient systems. I would think that thought is fairly self evident to the subset that is preoccupied with such thoughts.
But as the endless exegesis of still-with-us Dr. Kay's historic utterances here and elsewhere demonstrate, there is this very obviously missing link (or unkindly 'hand waving') between "his" 'big idea' and how could we possibly build bio-morphic computational systems with the current state of the art and craft of building software. At which point one could ask the question "why are we discussing these wooshy notions?"
His point is, as far as I understand, that we should keep studying biological systems as inspiration for our computational systems, not for the short term (5-10 years) but long term (100-500 years). Sussman equally has famous lectures on the same topic, "we don't know how to compute"
The why is not to be practical right now, but to research these ideas to the point where they do become practical, no?
But then again, I agree with you, he does keep going on about the same ideas again and again and again, without pointing to the slightly more practical details... Basically ever. It's always "no what we do is bad, all of it, haha don't we suck?" "Look at these cathedrals and ant hills! Why can't we do that???"
> The why is not to be practical right now, but to research these ideas to the point where they do become practical, no?
I do agree. Vision can furnish the impetus. A good "Research" effort must bear fruits, and result in "findings".
For example, in my mind, what is not addressed by Alan Kay is whether there will be any meaningful distinction between software and biology in an age where his vision is realized. Clarification (or development) of this key point would inform research efforts.
A second problematic aspect has to do with developmental methodology. Should we be working at the genotype or phenotype level? If the former, see above question. If latter, is not raising cattle somewhat analogous to tending to your objects? (Meaning: cattle herders are not biologists ..)
Related to this is the issue of scale. Biological systems are indeed majestic, and no wonder: look at the range of scales of biological mechanisms! Even our current wonder crust of layer upon layer of the net's stack amounts to nothing more than an active biological membrane buried somewhere deep in some micro corner of an 'biological organism'. The biological organism is stupendously complex and its component elements' sizes range from micrometers to meters. We have 10^13 cells in our bodies. And a single cell is by itself a marvel of complexity.
Are those scale ranges and complexity orders necessary for biological magic? Are we to attempt this with code on digital processors?
And let's not even discuss the various interactions that a single biological organism has with its environment and fellow creatures (at multiple layers of organizational structure, concurrently!).
And here, finally, we arrive at the actual wonder factory, an ecology where selection comes into play.
It would seem, at this point, to concede that perhaps the 'cattle ranchers' may not be so wrong headed, after all.
