[dgreensp]

I'm going to buck the trend of cynicism and say this is beautiful and matches my own ideas closely, though I have not read the paper yet.

How many of us seasoned programmers came to an understanding with computers by playing in a "toy world" of comprehensible, somewhat visible, documented, predictable abstractions, such as Logo, HyperCard, Excel, BASIC, or even assembly code, and now perform bizarre ceremonial rites on a daily basis to get a teetering stack to perform our bidding as part of "real" programming? There's a vicious interplay between how "bad" and complex software is and how arcane and unapproachable it is, even to experts, driving away all but the most determined to crack the code, who then work together to try to build quality components and applications against great odds.

[dgreensp]

After reading the thesis, the proposed model of computing is like a concurrent Smalltalk where everything is completely mutable, even an object's code and prototype chain. The author then writes a function to calculate the Fibonacci sequence by turning it into a distributed system, with some effort, and then runs the code and talks about its performance!

At first glance, there seems to be a lot of incidental complexity and creative choice in expressing a function from integer to integer in this system, which goes against the ideas of code reuse and separating meaning from optimization -- i.e. that there is one global Fibonacci function that we can inspect and understand and don't have to rewrite for performance, or in another language, or to run in a distributed fashion.