4 ms·

Regarding the internet (and the design of TCP/IP in particular), here's a comment by Alan from his recent AMA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960130 ht

Regarding the internet (and the design of TCP/IP in particular), here's a comment by Alan from his recent AMA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960130 One interesting point from a talk of his - the internet has never broken or been unavailable since they turned it on, even though it has gone through about 3 successive generations of hardware/software.

jonahx 10y ago
So the idea, essentially, is that TCP/IP is like a "free form field" where people can write whatever they want, and then everyone is free to create their own structure on top of that, to suit their needs. In contrast to some protocol that accepted only, say, XML? His point, then, is that not forcing such structure was a crucial ingredient in the internet's success?
- endlessvoid94 10y ago
  The TCP messaging analogy here is that the design was a protocol, which focused on how different components in a TCP system communicate with each other. Rather than a design that focused on how each component worked internally. The inter-communication was the central design, not the intra-communication. Many OOP programmers today spend the bulk of their time thinking about how their objects should work rather than how they should communicate.
  - jstimpfle 10y ago
    > Many OOP programmers today spend the bulk of their time thinking about how their objects should work rather than how they should communicate. Which is the "proof" that OOP was oversold. This is called "structured programming". It's not evil :-) http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/05/oop-alternative-to-utility-classes.html http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/05/oop-alternative-to-utilit...
- infinite8s 10y ago
  Well, TCP/IP was just about the mechanics of getting 2 machines to be able to communicate with each other. He hints at the end of that comment on how to expand that to include meaning and interpretation of the actual message. One way of thinking about it - how would we communicate with an alien civilization? In a way that's how 2 machines that never interacted before could negotiate common meaning.
  - jonahx 10y ago
    > One way of thinking about it - how would we communicate with an alien civilization? In a way that's how 2 machines that never interacted before could negotiate common meaning. Interesting. Actual attempts to solve this, such as the Arecibo message, always reference "universal" constants like prime numbers, atomic structure, the speed of light, etc, to establish a common language. I'm not sure I understand what the analog would be for two computers?
    - infinite8s 10y ago
      Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure either. Alan Kay has a very socratic way of communicating (at least from reading through all his comments on the AMA) and I often feel like he's been sitting in a higher plane of thought for so long that the only way he is able to communicate his ideas is by 'forcing' the recipient to make the same jumps he has (a bit like the square in Flatland). I could be completely misunderstanding where he was going with those thoughts.

jonahx 10y ago

So the idea, essentially, is that TCP/IP is like a "free form field" where people can write whatever they want, and then everyone is free to create their own structure on top of that, to suit their needs. In contrast to some protocol that accepted only, say, XML? His point, then, is that not forcing such structure was a crucial ingredient in the internet's success?

endlessvoid94 10y ago
The TCP messaging analogy here is that the design was a protocol, which focused on how different components in a TCP system communicate with each other. Rather than a design that focused on how each component worked internally. The inter-communication was the central design, not the intra-communication. Many OOP programmers today spend the bulk of their time thinking about how their objects should work rather than how they should communicate.
- jstimpfle 10y ago
  > Many OOP programmers today spend the bulk of their time thinking about how their objects should work rather than how they should communicate. Which is the "proof" that OOP was oversold. This is called "structured programming". It's not evil :-) http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/05/oop-alternative-to-utility-classes.html http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/05/oop-alternative-to-utilit...
infinite8s 10y ago
Well, TCP/IP was just about the mechanics of getting 2 machines to be able to communicate with each other. He hints at the end of that comment on how to expand that to include meaning and interpretation of the actual message. One way of thinking about it - how would we communicate with an alien civilization? In a way that's how 2 machines that never interacted before could negotiate common meaning.
- jonahx 10y ago
  > One way of thinking about it - how would we communicate with an alien civilization? In a way that's how 2 machines that never interacted before could negotiate common meaning. Interesting. Actual attempts to solve this, such as the Arecibo message, always reference "universal" constants like prime numbers, atomic structure, the speed of light, etc, to establish a common language. I'm not sure I understand what the analog would be for two computers?
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure either. Alan Kay has a very socratic way of communicating (at least from reading through all his comments on the AMA) and I often feel like he's been sitting in a higher plane of thought for so long that the only way he is able to communicate his ideas is by 'forcing' the recipient to make the same jumps he has (a bit like the square in Flatland). I could be completely misunderstanding where he was going with those thoughts.