Although I can't see the original comment anymore, I can imagine it: I was probably thinking along the same lines. Let me try to explain thoughts of the 'hand-w

Although I can't see the original comment anymore, I can imagine it: I was probably thinking along the same lines. Let me try to explain thoughts of the 'hand-waving and pseudo-philosophical' kind: The main problem with Hickey's presentation is that it is unclear how well he actually understands the philosophy he cites and especially how thoroughly he investigated the alternatives to that philosophy. He presents a single view and doesn't debate it, while it warrants a book of its own. Something you can see clearly in students of philosophy, psychology and those 'softer' subjects, where multiple truths seem to exist, is that they tend to change opinions and general outlook along with what they learned last. The last thing they read made an impression and it is the first thing on their mind. This lasts until they reach the point of enlightenment, where they notice this fact and start to integrate their knowledge. But not everybody reaches that point, by having studied enough philosophy. Now you can be a world class physicist or computer scientist: that doesn't make you a good philosopher. In fact, great scientists have been known to espouse some pretty strange philosophies, whose implications they obviously didn't fully grasp. In light of that, Hickey's talk brings to mind the crackpots waving Kuhn's 'paradigm shift' around, without actually understanding it. It is also unclear how relevant the philosophical grounding is for the actual contents of his talk. If he left all the Whitehead quotes out, wouldn't it be a better presentation? If so, then he's guilty of basically an argument-by-authority: trying to prove his notions about time in programming are good, because he can call upon someone of the stature of Whitehead. I'm not convinced that isn't the case here, although I'm sure it was not the intent. I think all this 'philo-babble' detracts from the actual point he is trying to make. You're bound to get into endless debates about Whiteheads notion of time and such, while losing sight of the fact that Hickey makes a few practical points that most people probably agree on. A thorough analysis of time in object oriented programming does not need to be a full fledged philosophy and it definitely seems like hubris to present it as such. Hickey should stick to what he knows best and perhaps give some pointers as to philosophies supporting him, instead of making that his main point.