Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models?
Thanks Merik, I've read/watch the OOPSLA'97 keynote before, but hadn't seen the first video. I'm having problems with the first one(the talk at UIUC). Has anyone been able to watch past the first hour. I get up to the point where Alex speaks and it freezes. I've just recently read Roy Fielding's dissertation on the architecture of the Web. Two prominent features of web architecture are the (1) client-server hierarchical style and (2) the layering abstraction style. My take away from that is how all of abstraction layers of the web software stack get in the way of the applications that want to use the machine. Style 1 is counter to the notion of the 'no centers' principle and is very limiting when you consider different classes of applications that might involve many entities with ill-defined relationships. Style 2, provides for separation of concerns and supports integration with legacy systems, but incurs so much overhead in terms of structural complexity and performance. I think the stuff about web sockets and what was discussed in the Erlang interview that Micheal linked to in the 1st reply is relevant here. The web was designed for large grain interaction between entities, but many application domain problems don't map to that. Some people just want pipes or channels to exchange messages for fine-grained interactions, but the layer cake doesn't allow it. This is where you get the feeling that the architecture for rich web apps is no-architecture, just piling big stones atop one another. I think it would be very interesting for someone to take the same approach to networked-based application as Gezira did with graphics (or the STEP project in general) as far assessing what's needed in a modern Internet-scale hypermedia architecture. On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Merik Voswinkel wrote: > Dr Alan Kay addressed the html design a number of times in his lectures and > keynotes. Here are two: > > [1] Alan Kay, How Complex is "Personal Computing"?". Normal" Considered > Harmful. October 22, 2009, Computer Science department at UIUC. > http://media.cs.uiuc.edu/seminars/StateFarm-Kay-2009-10-22b.asx > (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) > > [2] Alan Kay, "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", October 7, > 1997, OOPSLA'97 Keynote. > Transcript > http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html > > Video > http://ftp.squeak.org/Media/AlanKay/Alan%20Kay%20at%20OOPSLA%201997%20-%20The%20computer%20revolution%20hasnt%20happened%20yet.avi > > (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) > > Merik > > On May 26, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Cornelius Toole wrote: > > All, > A criticism by Dr. Kay, has really stuck with me. I can't remember the > specific criticism and where it's from, but I recall it being about the how > wrong the web programming model is. I imagine he was referring to how > disjointed, resource inefficient it is and how it only exposes a fraction of > the power and capability inherent in the average personal computer. > > So Alan, anyone else, > what's wrong with the web programming mode and application architecture? > What programming model would work for a global-scale hypermedia system? What > prior research or commercial systems have any of these properties? > > The web is about the closest we've seen to a ubiquitous deployment platform > for software, but the confluence of market forces and technical realities > endanger that ubiquity because users want full power of their devices plus > the availability of Internet connectivity. > > -Cornelius > > -- > cornelius toole, jr. | ctoo...@tigers.lsu.edu | mobile: 601.212.3045 > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > -- cornelius toole, jr. | ctoo...@tigers.lsu.edu | mobile: 601.212.3045 ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models?
Hi Cornelius There are lots of egregiously wrong things in the web design. Perhaps one of the simplest is that the browser folks have lacked the perspective to see that the browser is not like an application, but like an OS. i.e. what it really needs to do is to take in and run foreign code (including low level code) safely and coordinate outputs to the screen (Google is just starting to realize this with NaCl after much prodding and beating.) I think everyone can see the implications of these two perspectives and what they enable or block Cheers, Alan From: Cornelius Toole To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Tue, May 31, 2011 7:16:20 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? Thanks Merik, I've read/watch the OOPSLA'97 keynote before, but hadn't seen the first video. I'm having problems with the first one(the talk at UIUC). Has anyone been able to watch past the first hour. I get up to the point where Alex speaks and it freezes. I've just recently read Roy Fielding's dissertation on the architecture of the Web. Two prominent features of web architecture are the (1) client-server hierarchical style and (2) the layering abstraction style. My take away from that is how all of abstraction layers of the web software stack get in the way of the applications that want to use the machine. Style 1 is counter to the notion of the 'no centers' principle and is very limiting when you consider different classes of applications that might involve many entities with ill-defined relationships. Style 2, provides for separation of concerns and supports integration with legacy systems, but incurs so much overhead in terms of structural complexity and performance. I think the stuff about web sockets and what was discussed in the Erlang interview that Micheal linked to in the 1st reply is relevant here. The web was designed for large grain interaction between entities, but many application domain problems don't map to that. Some people just want pipes or channels to exchange messages for fine-grained interactions, but the layer cake doesn't allow it. This is where you get the feeling that the architecture for rich web apps is no-architecture, just piling big stones atop one another. I think it would be very interesting for someone to take the same approach to networked-based application as Gezira did with graphics (or the STEP project in general) as far assessing what's needed in a modern Internet-scale hypermedia architecture. On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Merik Voswinkel wrote: Dr Alan Kay addressed the html design a number of times in his lectures and keynotes. Here are two: > > >[1] Alan Kay, How Complex is "Personal Computing"?". Normal" Considered >Harmful. >October 22, 2009, Computer Science department at UIUC. > http://media.cs.uiuc.edu/seminars/StateFarm-Kay-2009-10-22b.asx >(also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) > > >[2] Alan Kay, "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", October 7, 1997, >OOPSLA'97 Keynote. > Transcript >http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html > Video >http://ftp.squeak.org/Media/AlanKay/Alan%20Kay%20at%20OOPSLA%201997%20-%20The%20computer%20revolution%20hasnt%20happened%20yet.avi > > > (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) > >Merik > >On May 26, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Cornelius Toole wrote: > >All,A criticism by Dr. Kay, has really stuck with me. I can't remember the >specific criticism and where it's from, but I recall it being about the how >wrong the web programming model is. I imagine he was referring to how >disjointed, resource inefficient it is and how it only exposes a fraction of >the >power and capability inherent in the average personal computer. >> >> >>So Alan, anyone else, >>what's wrong with the web programming mode and application architecture? What >>programming model would work for a global-scale hypermedia system? What prior >>research or commercial systems have any of these properties? >> >> >>The web is about the closest we've seen to a ubiquitous deployment platform >>for >>software, but the confluence of market forces and technical realities >>endanger >>that ubiquity because users want full power of their devices plus the >>availability of Internet connectivity. >> >> >>-Cornelius >> >>-- >>cornelius toole, jr. | ctoo...@tigers.lsu.edu | mobile: 601.212.3045 >> >>___ >>fonc mailing list >>fonc@vpri.org >>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> > >___ >fonc mailing list >fonc@vpri.org >http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > -- cornelius toole, jr. | ctoo...@tigers.lsu.edu | mobile: 601.212.3045 ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models?
Didn't this debate happen with windowing systems (eg X vs NeWS, dumb vs smart windows-server). David On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Alan Kay wrote: > Hi Cornelius > > There are lots of egregiously wrong things in the web design. Perhaps one > of the simplest is that the browser folks have lacked the perspective to see > that the browser is not like an application, but like an OS. i.e. what it > really needs to do is to take in and run foreign code (including low level > code) safely and coordinate outputs to the screen (Google is just starting > to realize this with NaCl after much prodding and beating.) > > I think everyone can see the implications of these two perspectives and > what they enable or block > > Cheers, > > Alan > > -- > *From:* Cornelius Toole > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing > *Sent:* Tue, May 31, 2011 7:16:20 AM > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? > > Thanks Merik, > > I've read/watch the OOPSLA'97 keynote before, but hadn't seen the first > video. > I'm having problems with the first one(the talk at UIUC). Has anyone been > able to watch past the first hour. I get up to the point where Alex speaks > and it freezes. > > I've just recently read Roy Fielding's dissertation on the architecture of > the Web. Two prominent features of web architecture are the (1) > client-server hierarchical style and (2) the layering abstraction style. My > take away from that is how all of abstraction layers of the web software > stack get in the way of the applications that want to use the machine. Style > 1 is counter to the notion of the 'no centers' principle and is very > limiting when you consider different classes of applications that might > involve many entities with ill-defined relationships. Style 2, provides for > separation of concerns and supports integration with legacy systems, but > incurs so much overhead in terms of structural complexity and performance. I > think the stuff about web sockets and what was discussed in the Erlang > interview that Micheal linked to in the 1st reply is relevant here. The web > was designed for large grain interaction between entities, but many > application domain problems don't map to that. Some people just want pipes > or channels to exchange messages for fine-grained interactions, but the > layer cake doesn't allow it. This is where you get the feeling that the > architecture for rich web apps is no-architecture, just piling big stones > atop one another. > > I think it would be very interesting for someone to take the same approach > to networked-based application as Gezira did with graphics (or the STEP > project in general) as far assessing what's needed in a modern > Internet-scale hypermedia architecture. > > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Merik Voswinkel wrote: > >> Dr Alan Kay addressed the html design a number of times in his lectures >> and keynotes. Here are two: >> >> [1] Alan Kay, How Complex is "Personal Computing"?". Normal" Considered >> Harmful. October 22, 2009, Computer Science department at UIUC. >> http://media.cs.uiuc.edu/seminars/StateFarm-Kay-2009-10-22b.asx >> (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) >> >> [2] Alan Kay, "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", October 7, >> 1997, OOPSLA'97 Keynote. >> Transcript >> http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html >> >> Video >> http://ftp.squeak.org/Media/AlanKay/Alan%20Kay%20at%20OOPSLA%201997%20-%20The%20computer%20revolution%20hasnt%20happened%20yet.avi >> >> (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) >> >> Merik >> >> On May 26, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Cornelius Toole wrote: >> >> All, >> A criticism by Dr. Kay, has really stuck with me. I can't remember the >> specific criticism and where it's from, but I recall it being about the how >> wrong the web programming model is. I imagine he was referring to how >> disjointed, resource inefficient it is and how it only exposes a fraction of >> the power and capability inherent in the average personal computer. >> >> So Alan, anyone else, >> what's wrong with the web programming mode and application architecture? >> What programming model would work for a global-scale hypermedia system? What >> prior research or commercial systems have any of these properties? >> >> The web is about the closest we've seen to a ubiquitous deployment >> platform for software, but the confluence of market forces and technical >> realities endanger that ubiquity because users want full power of their >> devices plus the availability of Internet connectivity. >> >> -Cornelius >> >> -- >> cornelius toole, jr. | ctoo...@tigers.lsu.edu | mobile: 601.212.3045 >> ___ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> ___ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/f
Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models?
Sure, and much earlier too ... perhaps goes all the way back to Licklider's 1963 memo about "The Intergalactic Network", where he not only meant "big", but "(inter) communicating with aliens" (in this case alien code). Once you have a network of heterogeneous machines, one POV leads to the idea of using them as caches for computations made from protected processes that are loosely coupled via some form of messaging. The software in each machine handles just a few things having to do with resource allocation/sharing and network connections, etc. Everything else is done by the "floating processes". X is less of a good example than perhaps Gerry Popek's LOCUS system in the early 80s, which was a kind of distributed networked heterogeneous Unix with floating processes which could dynamically migrate while computing. There is a good book by Popek from MIT Press ... Basic idea here is to allow both vanilla programmers and trailblazers to be able to do what they do best on the same system. Cheers, Alan From: David Harris To: Fundamentals of New Computing Sent: Tue, May 31, 2011 8:47:39 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? Didn't this debate happen with windowing systems (eg X vs NeWS, dumb vs smart windows-server). David On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Alan Kay wrote: Hi Cornelius > >There are lots of egregiously wrong things in the web design. Perhaps one of >the >simplest is that the browser folks have lacked the perspective to see that the >browser is not like an application, but like an OS. i.e. what it really needs >to >do is to take in and run foreign code (including low level code) safely and >coordinate outputs to the screen (Google is just starting to realize this with >NaCl after much prodding and beating.) > >I think everyone can see the implications of these two perspectives and what >they enable or block > >Cheers, > >Alan > > > > From: Cornelius Toole >To: Fundamentals of New Computing >Sent: Tue, May 31, 2011 7:16:20 AM >Subject: Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? > >Thanks Merik, > > >I've read/watch the OOPSLA'97 keynote before, but hadn't seen the first video. >I'm having problems with the first one(the talk at UIUC). Has anyone been able >to watch past the first hour. I get up to the point where Alex speaks and it >freezes. > > >I've just recently read Roy Fielding's dissertation on the architecture of the >Web. Two prominent features of web architecture are the (1) client-server >hierarchical style and (2) the layering abstraction style. My take away from >that is how all of abstraction layers of the web software stack get in the way >of the applications that want to use the machine. Style 1 is counter to the >notion of the 'no centers' principle and is very limiting when you consider >different classes of applications that might involve many entities with >ill-defined relationships. Style 2, provides for separation of concerns and >supports integration with legacy systems, but incurs so much overhead in terms >of structural complexity and performance. I think the stuff about web sockets >and what was discussed in the Erlang interview that Micheal linked to in the >1st >reply is relevant here. The web was designed for large grain interaction >between >entities, but many application domain problems don't map to that. Some people >just want pipes or channels to exchange messages for fine-grained >interactions, >but the layer cake doesn't allow it. This is where you get the feeling that >the >architecture for rich web apps is no-architecture, just piling big stones atop >one another. > > >I think it would be very interesting for someone to take the same approach to >networked-based application as Gezira did with graphics (or the STEP project >in >general) as far assessing what's needed in a modern Internet-scale hypermedia >architecture. > > > > > >On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Merik Voswinkel wrote: > >Dr Alan Kay addressed the html design a number of times in his lectures and >keynotes. Here are two: >> >> >>[1] Alan Kay, How Complex is "Personal Computing"?". Normal" Considered >>Harmful. >>October 22, 2009, Computer Science department at UIUC. >> http://media.cs.uiuc.edu/seminars/StateFarm-Kay-2009-10-22b.asx >>(also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) >> >> >>[2] Alan Kay, "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", October 7, 1997, >>OOPSLA'97 Keynote. >> Transcript >>http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html >> Video >>http://ftp.squeak.org/Media/AlanKay/Alan%20Kay%20at%20OOPSLA%201997%20-%20The%20computer%20revolution%20hasnt%20happened%20yet.avi >> >> >> (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) >> >>Merik >> >>On May 26, 2011, at 8:38 PM, Cornelius Toole wrote: >> >>All,A criticism by Dr. Kay, has really stuck with me. I can
Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models?
Thanks for the pointers, Alan. The LOCUS stuff looks interesting. WRT to the web browser as OS not application, you'd think Google would've pushed ChromeOS further in that direction. I will say that modern browsers consume memory like they're full-blown OSes(Chrome is using about 922MB of memory on my machine). Maybe that's on their roadmap, but won't be plausible until NaCl is more mature. ChromeOS won't be interesting to me as a platform unless it can enable web media to shine in a way that it couldn't just as something in the browser on traditional PC OSes (e.g. WebGL performance on ChromeOS should approach accelerated graphics performance of a native OpenGL program) . I think what we're facing is people who are trying to make the web model subsume all(or too much) of computing, which then limits the applications that can be built based on that model. Is it possible design and deploy an architecture that supersets the web architecture. Take for instance, suppose client-server or point-to-point communication is a special-case supported by some peer-to-peer architecture. Maybe the DOM could be an instance of a more expressive, compact presentation model and API. I'm just wondering how to get from where we are to someplace better, but want to consult those who may know of good maps already. -Cornelius On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Alan Kay wrote: > Sure, and much earlier too ... perhaps goes all the way back to Licklider's > 1963 memo about "The Intergalactic Network", where he not only meant "big", > but "(inter) communicating with aliens" (in this case alien code). > > Once you have a network of heterogeneous machines, one POV leads to the > idea of using them as caches for computations made from protected processes > that are loosely coupled via some form of messaging. The software in each > machine handles just a few things having to do with resource > allocation/sharing and network connections, etc. Everything else is done by > the "floating processes". > > X is less of a good example than perhaps Gerry Popek's LOCUS system in the > early 80s, which was a kind of distributed networked heterogeneous Unix with > floating processes which could dynamically migrate while computing. There is > a good book by Popek from MIT Press ... > > Basic idea here is to allow both vanilla programmers and trailblazers to be > able to do what they do best on the same system. > > Cheers, > > Alan > > -- > *From:* David Harris > > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing > *Sent:* Tue, May 31, 2011 8:47:39 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? > > Didn't this debate happen with windowing systems (eg X vs NeWS, dumb vs > smart windows-server). > > David > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Alan Kay wrote: > >> Hi Cornelius >> >> There are lots of egregiously wrong things in the web design. Perhaps one >> of the simplest is that the browser folks have lacked the perspective to see >> that the browser is not like an application, but like an OS. i.e. what it >> really needs to do is to take in and run foreign code (including low level >> code) safely and coordinate outputs to the screen (Google is just starting >> to realize this with NaCl after much prodding and beating.) >> >> I think everyone can see the implications of these two perspectives and >> what they enable or block >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> -- >> *From:* Cornelius Toole >> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing >> *Sent:* Tue, May 31, 2011 7:16:20 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? >> >> Thanks Merik, >> >> I've read/watch the OOPSLA'97 keynote before, but hadn't seen the first >> video. >> I'm having problems with the first one(the talk at UIUC). Has anyone been >> able to watch past the first hour. I get up to the point where Alex speaks >> and it freezes. >> >> I've just recently read Roy Fielding's dissertation on the architecture of >> the Web. Two prominent features of web architecture are the (1) >> client-server hierarchical style and (2) the layering abstraction style. My >> take away from that is how all of abstraction layers of the web software >> stack get in the way of the applications that want to use the machine. Style >> 1 is counter to the notion of the 'no centers' principle and is very >> limiting when you consider different classes of applications that might >> involve many entities with ill-defined relationships. Style 2, provides for >> separation of concerns and supports integration with legacy systems, but >> incurs so much overhead in terms of structural complexity and performance. I >> think the stuff about web sockets and what was discussed in the Erlang >> interview that Micheal linked to in the 1st reply is relevant here. The web >> was designed for large grain interaction between entities, but many >> application domain problems don't map to that. Some people just want pipes >> or channels to exchang
Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models?
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Alan Kay wrote: > Sure, and much earlier too ... perhaps goes all the way back to Licklider's > 1963 memo about "The Intergalactic Network", where he not only meant "big", > but "(inter) communicating with aliens" (in this case alien code). > We've reserved a release name for this in Sugar: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy#Galactose:_a_future_Sugar_base_designed_for_alternate_computing_forms :) --Fred Once you have a network of heterogeneous machines, one POV leads to the idea > of using them as caches for computations made from protected processes that > are loosely coupled via some form of messaging. The software in each machine > handles just a few things having to do with resource allocation/sharing and > network connections, etc. Everything else is done by the "floating > processes". > > X is less of a good example than perhaps Gerry Popek's LOCUS system in the > early 80s, which was a kind of distributed networked heterogeneous Unix with > floating processes which could dynamically migrate while computing. There is > a good book by Popek from MIT Press ... > > Basic idea here is to allow both vanilla programmers and trailblazers to be > able to do what they do best on the same system. > > Cheers, > > Alan > > -- > *From:* David Harris > > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing > *Sent:* Tue, May 31, 2011 8:47:39 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? > > Didn't this debate happen with windowing systems (eg X vs NeWS, dumb vs > smart windows-server). > > David > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Alan Kay wrote: > >> Hi Cornelius >> >> There are lots of egregiously wrong things in the web design. Perhaps one >> of the simplest is that the browser folks have lacked the perspective to see >> that the browser is not like an application, but like an OS. i.e. what it >> really needs to do is to take in and run foreign code (including low level >> code) safely and coordinate outputs to the screen (Google is just starting >> to realize this with NaCl after much prodding and beating.) >> >> I think everyone can see the implications of these two perspectives and >> what they enable or block >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> -- >> *From:* Cornelius Toole >> *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing >> *Sent:* Tue, May 31, 2011 7:16:20 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Alternative Web programming models? >> >> Thanks Merik, >> >> I've read/watch the OOPSLA'97 keynote before, but hadn't seen the first >> video. >> I'm having problems with the first one(the talk at UIUC). Has anyone been >> able to watch past the first hour. I get up to the point where Alex speaks >> and it freezes. >> >> I've just recently read Roy Fielding's dissertation on the architecture of >> the Web. Two prominent features of web architecture are the (1) >> client-server hierarchical style and (2) the layering abstraction style. My >> take away from that is how all of abstraction layers of the web software >> stack get in the way of the applications that want to use the machine. Style >> 1 is counter to the notion of the 'no centers' principle and is very >> limiting when you consider different classes of applications that might >> involve many entities with ill-defined relationships. Style 2, provides for >> separation of concerns and supports integration with legacy systems, but >> incurs so much overhead in terms of structural complexity and performance. I >> think the stuff about web sockets and what was discussed in the Erlang >> interview that Micheal linked to in the 1st reply is relevant here. The web >> was designed for large grain interaction between entities, but many >> application domain problems don't map to that. Some people just want pipes >> or channels to exchange messages for fine-grained interactions, but the >> layer cake doesn't allow it. This is where you get the feeling that the >> architecture for rich web apps is no-architecture, just piling big stones >> atop one another. >> >> I think it would be very interesting for someone to take the same approach >> to networked-based application as Gezira did with graphics (or the STEP >> project in general) as far assessing what's needed in a modern >> Internet-scale hypermedia architecture. >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Merik Voswinkel wrote: >> >>> Dr Alan Kay addressed the html design a number of times in his lectures >>> and keynotes. Here are two: >>> >>> [1] Alan Kay, How Complex is "Personal Computing"?". Normal" Considered >>> Harmful. October 22, 2009, Computer Science department at UIUC. >>> http://media.cs.uiuc.edu/seminars/StateFarm-Kay-2009-10-22b.asx >>> (also see http://www.smalltalk.org.br/movies/ ) >>> >>> [2] Alan Kay, "The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet", October 7, >>> 1997, OOPSLA'97 Keynote. >>> Transcript >>> http://blog.moryton.net/2007/12/computer-revolution-hasnt-happened-yet.html >>> >>>
