Source was Kristine Schachinger's G+ post-mortem:
In the years between 2009-2015 (loosely speaking), there was a push by corporate entities and governments around the world to build an online ecosystem that could replace passwords.
Not only did they want to replace passwords, but they wanted to help better identify the person behind the log-in as a real human, a verified person.
This “verified” identity was to make it, so users were known to the companies they interacted with online.
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-plus-history-deat...
That inquiry was sparked by Andy Carvin's infamous Q&A with then Google CEO Eric Schmidt:
G+ was built primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names
https://mashable.com/2011/08/28/google-plus-identity-service...
The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace proposal itself: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg73124/pdf/CHRG-112... (PDF) (p.26)
(Other Trusted Identity providers included ... Equifax: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/10/14/advanci...)
The project was defunded in 2015.
Alex Howard wrote an excellent O'Reilly Radar piece, "A Manhattan Project for Online Identity"
http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/nstic-analysis-identity-pri...
My sense is that the entire social media push had a strong national policy agenda behind it. Which appears to have backfired somewhat.
Disclaimer: I helped organise migration off Google+, under the pseudonymous identity of a space alien cat. Dogs are so passe.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music...
I suppose it's similar to how some people prefer the distortion of "tube sound".
It's actually implemented in C++ of course, but it has a virtual machine that executes a noodly visual programming language called "SimAntics". And by noodly, I mean optimized for spaghetti code, containing intertwined loops, floppy, and droopy...
https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-sims-pie-menus-49ca02a74d...
Subject Oriented Programming
This is described by some people as object — not Object Oriented Programming, but Subject Oriented Programming.
Objectifying People
People are objects, so when you click on another person, the items that you get in the menu depend on your mood, and your relationship with that person.
(From the transcript of this demo video:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-exdu4ETscs
The Sims, Pie Menus, Edith Editing, and SimAntics Visual Programming Demo
This is a demonstration of the pie menus, architectural editing tools, and Edith visual programming tools that I developed for The Sims with Will Wright at Maxis and Electronic Arts.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/interview-will-wright-sims-...
Will Wright: Well, one of the first challenges was could we develop a really robust model of human behavior test so that we could put these little characters in the elements in any situation they would behave reasonably. A Sims user is kind of controlling the environment. They can put the Sims in a wide variety of potential environments and then the Sims have to act reasonable. So we kind of had to develop a very — well, on the surface, it looks like an object-oriented programming model, but in fact, it’s what’s technically called a subject-oriented programming model. But I won’t get into that detail. So developing this robust kind of behavior system — in fact, it was environmentally distributed intelligence is the way we solved it.
But on the design side, there was a lot of thought about how much autonomy do these characters have versus how much reliance do they have on the player directing their actions. And there was also a whole dimension of thought around how much are we going to let the player read in to the simulation. In other words, how much of the simulation are we going to offer them to play of imagination versus make very clear and overt?
https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/697362-need-some-advice...
All8Up Moderator
Posted June 15, 2018
From the way the embedded code is shown, I would say the first thing to do is reverse the logic. What I mean is that what you posted suggests that the code is along the lines of "I'm trying to interact with you" and "I need to figure out what you are and what I can do to you". Conceptually of course is the most sensible solution, unfortunately in practice it is also the solution which fails the most often. Rather than this, I've always used subject oriented programming for interactions. This reverses the logic such that rather than the 'doer' figuring things out the subject of the interaction performs the work. Basically this means that the input system would simply set a flag on the input component saying "this entity wishes to interact". The interaction system can then do pre-cull for subject entities which are in range, which ones can be used from the doer's position, etc. Finally, you end up with a door that runs the rule checks: "You are in range, you have my key, it is Monday after noon, you are wearing a purple shirt... Ok, guess I will open now."
As to how you implement these things in the ECS itself, I suspect everyone does it differently. Personally I use a handle based approach where the interaction component simply contains a handle which refers to usually a script which checks the interaction rules. The script gets the doer and subject ID's so it can check states and make the decision. Then, likely in another script, an action is performed.
Overall this probably sounds ass backwards but it is a well proven solution to removing massive 'if/else' checks. It is also great for expansion packs and such since all the new logic is contained in the subject and you don't have to patch the doer code to understand the new interaction. Just as an example, The Sims used(still uses I assume) this subject oriented approach which allows DLC to be dropped in and mostly just work.
Hope this makes sense.
http://ivizlab.sfu.ca/arya/Papers/SW/SOP.pdf
Subject-Oriented Programming (A Critique of Pure Objects). William Harrison and Harold Ossher.
Abstract
Object-Oriented technology is often described in terms of an interwoven troika of themes: encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance. But these themes are firmly tied with the concept of identity. If object-oriented technology is to be successfully scaled from the development of independent applications to development of integrated suites of applications, it must relax its emphasis on the object. The technology must recognize more directly that a multiplicity of subjective views delocalizes the concept of object, and must emphasize more the binding concept of identity to tie them together.
This paper explores this shift to a style of object oriented technology that emphasizes the subjective views: Subject-Oriented Programming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-oriented_programming
In computing, subject-oriented programming is an object-oriented software paradigm in which the state (fields) and behavior (methods) of objects are not seen as intrinsic to the objects themselves, but are provided by various subjective perceptions (“subjects”) of the objects. The term and concepts were first published in September 1993 in a conference paper[1] which was later recognized as being one of the three most influential papers to be presented at the conference between 1986 and 1996. As illustrated in that paper, an analogy is made with the contrast between the philosophical views of Plato and Kant with respect to the characteristics of “real” objects, but applied to software ones. For example, while we may all perceive a tree as having a measurable height, weight, leaf-mass, etc., from the point of view of a bird, a tree may also have measures of relative value for food or nesting purposes, or from the point of view of a tax-assessor, it may have a certain taxable value in a given year. Neither the bird’s nor the tax-assessor’s additional state information need be seen as intrinsic to the tree, but are added by the perceptions of the bird and tax-assessor, and from Kant’s analysis, the same may be true even of characteristics we think of as intrinsic.