At first glance, it seemed like yet another silicon-valley-neoliberlist-style lots of words and ideologies, but no code and practicalities. But it seems like OPs thesis has a more hands-on approach:
- It seems some kind of language/computation-model. Loosely based on a "everything is an actor" model.
- It did look goodish. I tried following the Fibonacci example, which sort of made sense (I got the impression that recursion is handled by creating new nodes/zells). The discussion chapter also seemed interesting.
- It has that abstruse academic feel, where sometimes it is hard to assess whether the problem is my ignorance, or just vagueness of the publication.
- Motivation sections usually have an exaggerated tone to them (i.e. this will totally change everything), but this one, and the article above, are a bit over the top.
- There are also some over-the-top statements sprinkled throughout the thesis (e.g. "a model of virtual objects which exist independent of any hardware").
- thanks =)
- I had that same feeling while writing it, constantly balancing my own ignorance with an acceptable level of vagueness
- call me the over-the-top guy. But the way I see, your vision has to be grand, if not megalomaniac if you want the essence to survive the collision with reality
- seamlessly migrating networked objects are one of the lesser over-the-top ideas though
What I'm planning to use as information starting point is zells.org but it's all still in an early stage. At the moment I'm working on creating a document that visualizes the "end product" that I have in mind.
I only glanced at it, though, so maybe its easier than it seems, but to me, the samples looked complex enough that I don't see it.
It does look great as an experiment into different programming models though and that's something I always enjoy (and is needed if we're to get better future tools).