Thanks! This is a great description of what I think Alan is trying to describe. The issue most people seem to be facing is that they are trying to map his ideas

Thanks! This is a great description of what I think Alan is trying to describe. The issue most people seem to be facing is that they are trying to map his ideas of messaging onto their current conceptions of what software should look like, instead of stepping back (way back) and saying - how would a bunch of Universal Turing Machines communicate? Software today is fixed functionality - once it's written it can only be changed with great pain. What if we made meaning and interpretation of messages 'late-bound'?