From: dave@afs.com (David J. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Future Issues of Object Orientation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:18:21 GMT

In article <923@ast.dsd.northrop.com> dvorak@ast.dsd.northrop.com (dvorak  
joseph l.) writes:
> 
>  I would like to start a discussion about what people believe
>  will be the critical issues in object technology in the next
>  5 - 8 years. What solutions to these issues do you see and
>  how will the solutions affect the object model?
> 

I think the singular critical issue will still be the interfaces and  
connectivity of objects.

Today we are building objects that are generally simple. We know the  
target platform, we develop the object to one standard or another, we try  
to make things as reusable as possible, and we build `intuitive' access  
methods. If the object is straightforward, we can do a good enough job of  
defining the interfaces to it and everything works and we're happy.

When we need to write more complex objects, it is difficult to determine  
what constitutes a reasonable interface. This follows directly from our  
experience with real-world physical objects: we readily `discover' many  
uses for objects which were not evident to the designer. This problem is  
not tractable through decomposition or from a static holistic viewpoint;  
it is more on the order of "what will the object be used for?" We can make  
good guesses sometimes, but as our objects become more complex, we tend to  
concentrate on only our problem domain and not the others in which the  
object could be equally (or more) useful. 

Inevitably, we will build objects which are complex; today's applications  
will be tommorrow's building blocks. From an academic point of view,  
systems and objects are equivalent given a sufficient run-time  
environment. Object systems of the future will be build from  
intercommunicating systems of object-applications, which themselves are  
object-applications, etc.

This is a very organic situation. Consider life as we know it. Initially  
the building blocks were small and simple organic compounds. The ones that  
could intercommunicate (ie. bond) with each other built up into simple  
living and quasi-living systems (dna-based, viruses). These in turn  
mutated/evolved/specialized into higher-order organic systems (cells)  
which further mutated/evolved/specialized to even higher orders (plants,  
animals, etc.) Intercommunication at the higher level is possible through  
some channels (sensory organs) but not others (interspecies reproduction,  
direct mental connection, etc.) and begs the questions of the existence  
subjective higher levels (consciousness, soul) and if interconnection at  
these levels is ever possible. Once chains of lower-order evolution have  
brought forth higher-order, things gain inertia; we see different  
varieties of dogs, bu not a dog-man. Sure it could still happen, but  
natural selection keeps it down.

What we face in object technology is designing the evolution of an  
`objective life'. Determining what can communicate with what and how that  
communication will be effected is as important and integrated as deciding  
what the objects we will build are. Some of us are considering these  
issues in our object design, but we still do a lot of design just to get  
products out the door. This is not an `at odds' situation; technology  
evolves to help the people who evolve it as much as the people who may  
directly use it. The objects that people need are the ones they'll pay for  
and the ones we ultimately build. By better trying to determine how  
objects will communicate we will significantly enhance our ability decide  
what those objects really should be. 

____________________________________________________________________
Dave Anderson  |    ...consequently, society expects all earnestly
  the dman     |    responsible communication to be crisply brief...
dave@afs.com   |    we are not seeking a license to ramble wordily.
Xref: sparky comp.object:3350 comp.lang.smalltalk:1739 comp.lang.eiffel:1101