Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

HP Fires Father of OOP

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Jul 21, 2005 08:17 PM
from the hard-times dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Wow. Hewlett-Packard has disbanded its Advanced Software Research team and sent its leader, reknowned programmer Alan Kay, packing. From today's Good Morning Silicon Valley: 'HP is bidding adieu to legendary Silicon Valley technologist Alan Kay. A founder of Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, Kay -- who once said, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" -- was instrumental in the development of the windowing GUI and modern object-oriented programming. He envisioned a laptop computer long before the first ones rolled out and his Smalltalk programming language was a predecessor to Sun Microsystems' Java. Hard to believe HP's cutting him loose.' Maybe Apple will hire him."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • HP Slogans (Score:4, Insightful)

    by randalware (720317) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:19PM (#13131092) Homepage Journal


    HP Invent ---- Isn't that hard without inventors ?
    • Re:HP Slogans (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alaren (682568) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:33PM (#13131198) Homepage

      Actually, what they meant to say was "HP Invest." Just one letter. Simple mistake, really.

      But there you have it. I was reading this article [commondreams.org] about America's economy today and wondering if it wasn't a bit alarmist. But as an IT employee of a privately owned company, I have to admit that I am quite nervous about the prospect of an IPO (not that I have any idea when or if it will happen)... although I might make a decent amount of money on stock options, I'm not ranked high enough that I would be able to retire.

      And once the IPO goes through, suddenly it's no longer about employees and customers but aout shareholders and reports and juggling meaningless numbers. It ultimately doesn't matter how talented someone is; talent doesn't appear on the report that says "Cut X number of employees in order to free up some cash so our quarterly will attract more investors."

      • by daeley (126313) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:40PM (#13131255) Homepage
        Actually, what they meant to say was "HP Invest." Just one letter. Simple mistake, really.

        Actually actually, I think it meant to say "HP Invert", as in Rectal-Cranial Inversion, which is what HP has collectively accomplished with moves like this.
        • by handy_vandal (606174) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:48PM (#13131304) Homepage Journal
          Actually, what they meant to say was "HP Invest." Just one letter. Simple mistake, really.

          Actually actually, I think it meant to say "HP Invert", as in Rectal-Cranial Inversion, which is what HP has collectively accomplished with moves like this.

          Fact: they meant to say "HP Invect" -- that is, to issue invective.

          Examples:

          "Fuck you, losers -- we're better off without you!"

          And:

          "HP Rules! U-S-A-!! U-S-A-!!," etc.

          -kgj
          • by skraps (650379) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:00PM (#13131370)

            Actually, what they meant to say was "HP Invest." Just one letter. Simple mistake, really.

            Actually actually, I think it meant to say "HP Invert", as in Rectal-Cranial Inversion, which is what HP has collectively accomplished with moves like this.

            Fact: they meant to say "HP Invect" -- that is, to issue invective.

            Actual fact: they meant to say "HP Invebt" -- the meaning of which is unknown.

            • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:47PM (#13131609)
              HP Indebt?
              • by jcmunt (901778) on Friday July 22 2005, @03:17AM (#13133195) Homepage
                Proably wont win any karma for saying this but what exactly has Alan Kay done in like the last 20 years.

                Squeak http://www.squeak.org/ [squeak.org]
                Croquet http://opencroquet.org/ [opencroquet.org]
                eToys http://squeakland.org/ [squeakland.org]
              • For example what did this HP group do while SUN was inventing Java and Microsoft C#.

                Guys, guys, be aware of your history. The 'virtual machine' has been around since at least 1966 [wikipedia.org]. The concept of a virtual machine which was the common host to multiple languages has been around since at least 1977 [wikipedia.org]. Automatic memory management and garbage collection has been around since I was a small child [wikipedia.org].

                Don't get me wrong. I like Java. I make my living out of Java. But Sun didn't 'invent' Java. Nothing in the conception of the Oak (later Java [wikipedia.org]) platform was either new or innovative. Java was a nice, clean implementation of some well known programming techniques which got a good marketing push behind it.

                As for C# - indeed the whole .net platform - it is a very straight copy of Java. Virtually nothing - from the syntax of the C# language to many of the opcodes of the virtual machine - has changed. These things are not 'innovations' or 'inventions'. They're technology as usual; building on and refining what went before in quite small increments.

                By contrast, Smalltalk genuinely was innovative. It was the first fully object oriented language. It used a virtual machine, but was the first virtual machine language which had a JIT [wikipedia.org]. Don't devalue inventions. Inventions (especially in software) are rare; there have been only about half a dozen genuine software inventions since 1960, and Smalltalk definitely counts as one of those.

        • by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot@kadin.xoxy@net> on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:33PM (#13131533) Homepage Journal
          I'm assuming this is a troll.

          I'm going to make that assumption, because the only other option is too depressing.

          Unless you'd like a future where everything is basically owned and run--to a far greater extent than it already is--by a very small number of tremendously rich individuals, corporations are a good thing. This is because very few people actually have the resources by themselves to bankroll significant and long-lasting ventures: scientific, industrial, or otherwise.

          To do big things, like build factories, operate supertankers, run airlines, you need a lot of money. Much more than any one sane person would be willing to put up. This is why corporations exist: they allow people to pool their resources, while mitigating risk. Without the shelter from liability that corporations offer, no one would invest in them. Without the great pools of capital that corporations provide, a whole lot of things that we enjoy and make life more enjoyable would disappear.

          Maybe you want to live in a world without corporations, but count me out of it.
                  • Re:Oh, and... (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by ppanon (16583) on Friday July 22 2005, @03:28AM (#13133232) Homepage Journal
                    Well, let's see. Your particular solutions to the (admittedly growing) problem of corporatism in America appear to involve using force to prevent people from joining together for profit-making purposes.
                    He's right, you are putting up straw men because he said nothing of the sort. He specically said the the current limited-liability for-profit corporate model is broken because the current legal framework for those corps requiring profit maximization not only encourages unethical behaviour but requires often self-destructive short-term focus.

                    While he did put up non-profit corps as an alternative, there are others: for-profit partnerships for example. The point he argues is that the profit motive should not be divorced from responsibility for a corp's actions.

                    One alternative, which is certainly possible with current information systems, is to change the definition of shareholder liability in a limited-liability corporation to be capped at the share value (during ownership) or (post-divestment) all income obtained from that corporation, via both capital gains and dividends, for the result of any actions taken during the period of share ownership, regardless of whether a person is still a shareholder or has sold their shares. So you can't be a CEO/President (or majority shareholder supporting said executive), run a company into the ground through unethical practices, hide it while making a killing by selling shares through an overinflated stock price, and escaping the liability for those actions when the pigeons come home to roost.

                    And if you're a small shareholder (or pension manager), you'll have a lot more interest in making sure you have company directors that are providing good oversight of the executive team, instead of rubber stamping their golf club buddies.
        • Re:HP Slogans (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Brandybuck (704397) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:50PM (#13131623) Homepage Journal
          A corporation is essentially an artificial entity that cannot exist without government fiat. It's the modern day version of a chartered company. What makes a corporation legally different from a private business is that the former is a legal "person". The results on the actual owners of the corporation (shareholders) being totally absolved of responsibility for the actions of the corporation. Their share price may plummet if the company does something stupid, but they themselves are not personally responsible for their property.

          That's the legal aspect of corporations, and justification enough to get rid of them. But it also introduces a subtler monkeywrench into the economy: encouraging stock ownership as an investment, which severely dilutes company ownership. There are so many owners, millions in many cases, that it's impossible for the owners to exercise control, even if they wanted to. So they elect a board of directors instead, who hires executives to actually run it.

          All in all, corporations are unnatural entities. But the fix is easy, and doesn't need a new constitutional ammendment. Just rescind the current laws of incorporation. But don't expect it anytime soon. Like copyright and patents, incorporation is too useful of a fiction to abolish. You'll be fought tooth and nail from every side. Who are you going to go to for legal assistance, some non-profit corporation?
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:19PM (#13131101)
    Especially appropriate, now that the mother of "Oops!" [hp.com] is out of the picture.
  • Google (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Altanar (56809) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:21PM (#13131109)
    I predict that Google announces that they hired him in a week.
  • Bad Idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by west.to.east (867173) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:24PM (#13131130)
    Reminds me of the "Bad Idea Jeans" SNL commercial
  • the HP bio on Alan Kay [hp.com]
  • "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind."
    - Alan Kay

    I don't know if this is a true quotation, or is apocryphal, but it's good enough to throw around at random.

    I'm sure Mr. Kay will not have any problem finding a job, should he so desire one. Regardless, I wish him the best of luck.
  • by Dioscorea (821163) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:33PM (#13131192) Homepage
    I wonder what will happen to Open Croquet [opencroquet.org] and TeaTime [doebe.li] without his leadership. It does seem as if Croquet has gained quite a bit of open-source momentum by this stage, and is the current best contender for bringing the world of Snow Crash to our desktop.

    I just hope development on Croquet doesn't stall now, otherwise us cyberspace-lusting techno-hopefuls will just have to wait for the inevitable (but still hopefully far-off) day where you can open Word documents and Excel spreadsheets from inside World of Warcraft.

  • Smalltalk (Score:5, Informative)

    by pthisis (27352) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:34PM (#13131199) Homepage Journal
    ...is the antithesis of the Java B&D philosophy. It's an aggressively dynamically typed language, and is much more of a precursor to Python or Ruby than Java.
    • Re:Smalltalk (Score:5, Informative)

      by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:46PM (#13131296) Journal
      It is also partially what Objective-C is based on. According to the wikipedia entry "the syntax for certain object-oriented features, including message-passing, is borrowed from Smalltalk."

      While you say "aggressively dynmically typed" you also remember you always have the option of statically typing.

      • Re:Smalltalk (Score:4, Informative)

        by ajjfk (11756) on Friday July 22 2005, @12:01AM (#13132513)
        According to someone who was there when Java was created, Java Was Strongly Influenced by Objective-C [virtualschool.edu] and did indeed borrow from Smalltalk: "When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++. So, naturally when I stayed to start the (eventually) Java project, Obj-C had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed from liberally." -- Patrick Naughton (for good or ill [rotten.com].
  • by alangmead (109702) * on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:34PM (#13131203)
    In between his stints as a Chief Scientist at Atari and a Disney Fellow at Walt Disney Imagineering, he was an Apple Fellow. (his bio on O'Reilly.com [oreillynet.com] has more info.)

    That is why the Squeak license still mentions Apple

  • by interrupt75 (230702) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:35PM (#13131211)
    There are some excellent videos on archive.org of Alan Kay explaining some of the early GUI projects (including Xerox and the early laptop "prototype") http://www.archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987 [archive.org] http://www.archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987_2 [archive.org]
  • Laptop? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fm6 (162816) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:36PM (#13131221) Homepage Journal
    He envisioned a laptop computer long before the first ones rolled out...
    Kay's Dynabook concept was more like a PDA or tablet than a laptop. Though more powerful than any of these. What he was really doing was trying to imagine what computing would be like when it was totally pervasive, and had completely replaced low-tech means of accessing and using information.

    On that basis, the rest of us still haven't caught up with him! Things like GUIs, portable computers, wireless networking, and the web are all steps towards the future he envisioned. But that future is still a long ways away.

  • by craig.larman (901716) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:44PM (#13131285)
    i can understand that it's really too trivial to have mentioned in his Bio intro, but Alan Kay also won some minor award recently -- think it's called the TURING AWARD. i can't imagine why anyone would want to employ such a slacker. http://internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/33425 11/ [internetnews.com] -craig
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:45PM (#13131291)
    HP laid off 15k workers, but is currently heavily recruiting engineers in India and China. Just take a look at the Job section on hp.com.

    HP has obviously abandoned the USA and it's time we abandon this dying company.
  • I don't find this hard to believe at all. HP's not in the blue-sky R&D business, and hasn't been for many years now.

    What I don't get, is why he ever went to HP in the first place.

    -jcr

  • by Tablizer (95088) on Thursday July 21 2005, @11:16PM (#13132231) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't OO invented in northern europe the mid 60's in the Simula language by a guy named something like Nygaard?
    • by kyrre (197103) on Friday July 22 2005, @01:14AM (#13132827)
      They where Kristen Nygaard [wikipedia.org] and Ole-Johan Dahl [wikipedia.org] working at Norwegian Computing Center. At least Nygaard have taught many young norwegians object oriented programming at the univeristy of Oslo. I think they still use Simula there. I was lucky enough to attend a course with him once. Nygaard told me the story of how they came up with OOP himself.

      They both died in 2002.

      Lately I have heard more than once that Alan Kay is the father of Object Oriented programming. But it seems he is the father of dynamic object oriented programming. At least that is what Wikipedia say. Why is the world already forgetting Nygaard and Dahl?

  • by Indy1 (99447) <spamtrap@fuckedregime.com> on Friday July 22 2005, @12:17AM (#13132597) Homepage
    the old slogan was "invent"

    the new slogan .....
    "merge, layoff, and go out of business"
  • by fbg111 (529550) on Friday July 22 2005, @12:52AM (#13132753)
    For some interesting anecdotes involving Alan [folklore.org]
  • by crucini (98210) on Friday July 22 2005, @02:00AM (#13132971)
    Do you think that any geek who achieves momentary fame should have a job for life? Don't you think an employee should be measured by the value he's contributing now?

    When I heard "Alan Kay" I remembered this load of whining. [fortune.com] Here's my comment on that [slashdot.org].

    I have more respect for people who actually get things done, like the Linux kernel contributors, than people who pontificate on the future of OO or whatever. Anyone claiming that HP should keep this guy because of his long-past accomplishments should have his head examined. HP should only retain people who help the company make money and move forward.
    • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Coryoth (254751) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:24PM (#13131129) Homepage Journal
      People wonder why no one is going into CS anymore.

      If you honestly think he'll be struggling to find a well paying job elsewhere you're deluding yourself. Just because large floundering corporations are laying off good CS people doesn't mean much. Mostly what it means is that HP obviously doesn't have any long term vision anymore, and are probably very much on the way out.

      Jedidiah.
      • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alienw (585907) <[alienw.slashdot] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:02PM (#13131385)
        If you honestly think he'll be struggling to find a well paying job elsewhere you're deluding yourself

        I'm not worried about him, I'm more worried about my own ass. If even large corporations don't need CS visionaries anymore, then CS is no longer a hot field. Thus, your main choices for a job are: coding boring business apps all day, or supporting boring and poorly written business apps all day. Real CS jobs (ones which depend on talent, rather than a "skillset" of buzzwords) are getting very difficult to come by.
          • Re:And... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by superpulpsicle (533373) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:51PM (#13131636)
            But it's not a troll. It's a fact!

            CS majors are smart people, but the US economy is dying for innovating marketing and business people to help them resell existing shit.

            The only time I have seen US CS majors gain immediate value is when they go abroad. There are plenty of companies in China, India, HK, Canada, Australia that would love to get their hands on top CS majors from the US.

      • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by yog (19073) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:10PM (#13131422) Homepage Journal
        HP has a fairly long history [pegasus3d.com] of getting rid of geniuses. Doubtlessly there are a few who remain well employed, but rejecting Wozniak and Jobs' idea for a personal computer has to rank with one of the all-time mistakes in corporate America, up there with the Coca-Cola Company not buying Pepsi when it had the chance, IBM giving a small software company a monopoly on its PC operating system, etc.

        I suspect that somehow HP will muddle through, just as IBM did. They're still a good company, despite the damage Fiorina caused them with their expensive and ill-considered buyout of Compaq Computers.
      • by PapayaSF (721268) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:11PM (#13131426)
        Mostly what it means is that HP obviously doesn't have any long term vision anymore, and are probably very much on the way out.

        About seven years ago I was a sub-sub-contractor working on a project for HP. A minor style issue came up on the documents I was formatting style sheets for: should there be a hyphen here or not? When I asked my contact at HP, he said: "I'll have to ask the committee about that."

        I thought: This company is doomed!
          • by attemptedgoalie (634133) on Friday July 22 2005, @01:38AM (#13132903)
            HP stock dives when Lexmark sells 3 printers. Because HP is just a printing company.

            HP stock dives when Dell changes their standard chassis color. Because HP is just a PC company.

            HP stock dives when IBM does some new services campaign. Because HP is just a consulting company.

            HP stock dives because they announce a new technology out of HP Labs. Because Dell doesn't have R&D, they save all that cash. HP is stupid for spending on that when they could just repaint Intel systems.

            HP stock dove this week because somebody leaked that they'd lay off 25,000 people. When it ended up only being 14,500, HP just wasn't serious about cutting costs.

            I am not saying that HP is fantastic, I am just saying that to call them just a PC company is silly. We all know that two articles from now (since there will be a dupe of this one before the next new article) it will be about printing, and everybody will say how HP is going to die since all they do is make printers...

            It will be an interesting year for HP. By 6/1/06, the company could look completely different.

            And one thing to consider, no computer seller is an engineering company any longer. Dell never was, Lenovo isn't going to be, Gateway isn't.

            Agilent is the engineering half of HP.
    • Re:And... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alomex (148003) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:53PM (#13131334) Homepage
      People wonder why no one is going into CS anymore.

      Actually employment stats bottomed in 2002 and have been picking up since. At the same time a lot of people are making the same mistake you did, which is reading too much in to the random firing.

      In sum the overall picture is something like IT employment down 10% but rising back up, CS enrolment down 50% and falling.

      Guess what that translates into? A shortage of CSers four years from now.

    • by 0xC0FFEE (763100) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:29PM (#13131166)
      Kay as already been at Apple, during the early Macintosh day. He's been at Xeros during the days of the Alto, worked on SmallTalk. Some people will tell you there as never been anything like it since.

      Kay is the kind of people that have too much ideas and not enough time to research or implement all of them (in a good sense of course). That means he's got potential ideas lined up waiting for some CPU cycles to become available. You give him carte blanche over a talented team and he create amazing stuff. I'd be the ideal person to build an "Internet Plateform", whatever it is. I can tell what exists today is not "it" and barely registers as functional in his mind. I'd be surprised if he doesn't end at Google.

    • by blueZhift (652272) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:37PM (#13131230) Homepage Journal
      Looks like Hurd is turning HP into a lean machine to be as focused on products and price as Dell currently is.

      Sigh...Dell does what it does pretty well, but they are definitely not a company known for much imagination or innovation. They generally follow after someone else has blazed the path, a strategy that must fail once all of the true innovators have been eliminated. We don't really need any more Dells. If HP becomes just like Dell, then why should I buy from them? I might as well buy from Dell.

      HP can still succeed, but they need to do so by being HP. Efficiency is good, but not at the expense of the good things that make HP stand out from the crowd and create future opportunities. I think farmers say that you shouldn't eat the seed corn.
        • Re:Don't dog Dell (Score:5, Insightful)

          by alienw (585907) <[alienw.slashdot] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:24PM (#13131496)
          Dell doesn't do anything creative. They buy cheap parts and build cheap computers with them on a large scale. They have thinner margins than some competitors, but they make it up in volume and crappy support. It's not like their prices are particularly low or anything (unless they have a good combination of rebates, which can only be redeemed using small claims court).

          Nothing particularly creative, it's a very straightforward and unimaginative approach that is mainly successful due to the general lack of innovation in the computer industry.
    • by Dioscorea (821163) on Thursday July 21 2005, @08:37PM (#13131231) Homepage
      Check out some of his presentations of open croquet before you say that (see e.g. here [lisarein.com]). He is bringing the kind of OpenGL graphics that gamers have got used to into the mainstream GUI. It is among the most innovative and forward-looking interface development I've seen. Do we really think we'll be dragging windows around a 2D desktop in 30 years time?
    • by william_w_bush (817571) on Thursday July 21 2005, @09:39PM (#13131564)
      This is the difference between a company and a business. A business is a company that has found its cash cow, and firmly opposes any further research or innovation that does not serve that golden calf. New technologies are particularly opposed, as they tend to change the business model, which requires the company to adapt (horrifying word to mba's btw, it requires thinking), to recreate the original, and beautiful, holy equilibrium, allowing the business to slowly move on, possibly growing into associated markets, without anything ever actually changing.

      Technology is only good as long as it can be seen as an evolutionary step, and is almost exlcusively performed by the marketing department, leading to the terms "new and improved", and "version 2.0"(heh, or "XP").

      Change is bad, Microsoft blew $5B on the Xbox project so far simply to keep sony from possibly threatening the windows empire with the ps2.

      Fear change, go with the names you trust, these are not the droids you are looking for.

      And the band played on.
    • by igb (28052) on Friday July 22 2005, @03:37AM (#13133259)
      DEC had a huge research empire. CRL in MA, handy
      for the MIT diaspora. WRL in Palo Alto for the
      Stanford diaspora. And then for added flavour
      SRC a block down from WRL, created so that Bob
      Taylor could employ the PARC diaspora (Thacker,
      Lampson). What good did it do them? A lot of
      work on X --- the xterm(1) manual page has people
      from all three, I think. Alta Vista, which Mike
      Burrows and others did at SRC. Brian Reid did a
      load of interesting stuff at WRL. Lamport was
      at SRC at various points, for which us LaTeX users
      give much thanks. I'm told SRC people bailed
      the Alpha design out at various points. But after
      that? At least a thousand man-years to produce...?

      Compaq kept it all going, but HP already had labs
      in Palo Alto and Bristol. How many research
      operations does a PC maker with a shrinking
      server market need? To do what?

      ian