> OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things.
This sounds a lot like microservice architecture.
This sounds a lot like microservice architecture.
Except that Kay did not envision the distinct computers communicating via REST.
https://blog.metaobject.com/2019/11/what-alan-kay-got-wrong-...
Also: microservices currently require at least process and frequently even VM/Container/Machine boundaries.
In-Process REST scales that down:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-9299-3_...
Language support for In-Process REST:
The separation of objects and usage of network protocols naturally forces interaction via communication and not data sharing, so perhaps as an emergent phenomenon it converges on Kay OOP. Although no doubt Netflix Microservice OG engineers were influenced by both Kay and Java.
If I were to quibble, though: in-process implies exactly the absence of the isolation guarantees that OOP!Kay and microservices share.
(The overhead on a Boolean also makes my inner Mel Kaye burst into tears, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion I suppose.)
You're welcome!
> in-process implies exactly the absence of the isolation guarantees that OOP!Kay and microservices share.
OOP objects are in-process and are isolated using language mechanisms rather than machine/process boundaries.