• jarm

    jarm

    3 years ago
    Interview with the creator: http://cdm.link/2019/02/hydra-olivia-jack
    jarm
    1 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Vladimir Gordeev

    Vladimir Gordeev

    3 years ago
    Was thinking about @shalabh's idea about abstracting away from DB We work with SQL table pretty much same way we would work with lists or sets locally. Find, select, filter, sort, insert. What if we split application in two distinct parts:1) where we work with data, do business logic. We globally specify data structures we want to use (set, queue, stack, dict) and number of template requests that work with them. Then we just implement our business logic using these data structures. 2) where we configure storage for data structures defined in first part. This code takes info about used data structures and requests, statistics of use. It selects appropriate database engine (or may be several for different data structures) and generates schema that fits description given in 1). It should also be possible to manually specify desired database engine. The choice of database engines for different data structures is limited by how they are used. When description of used data structures is changed, then it may require migration in 2) This will greatly simplify programming. It reminds ORM, but taken on whole different level.
    Vladimir Gordeev
    stevekrouse
    +3
    11 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Dan Cook

    Dan Cook

    3 years ago
    I recently added some thoughts to a "Christopher Alexander" channel. But the channel is invite-only (oops!), so here it all is again in a thread (see replies) where it is discoverable. (Note: C.A. is the source of software Design Patterns, and inspired a whole software "Patterns" movement. This largely failed, but Agile came (in part) out of the aftermath)
    Dan Cook
    w
    +4
    19 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • gman

    gman

    3 years ago
    Can complex advanced math be made super simple? Could calculus, linear algebra , quaternions, eigan vectors, cross products, determinants, solving equations, etc be taught in hours instead of years?
    gman
    1 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Jake Brownson

    Jake Brownson

    3 years ago
    Just listened to the podcast w/ Jonathan Edwards, always found his work inspiring. great interview, thanks.
    Jake Brownson
    1 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Edward de Jong / Beads Project

    Edward de Jong / Beads Project

    3 years ago
    where is the podcast with Jonathan Edwards?
    Edward de Jong / Beads Project
    stevekrouse
    2 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Corey

    Corey

    3 years ago
    Is there a way to listen at 2x speed?
    Corey
    Daniel Garcia
    2 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Kartik Agaram

    Kartik Agaram

    3 years ago
    One alternative to an idea maze for sorting ourselves may be for each of us to list principles, so that we can build up some sort of adjacency matrix to figure out who overlaps most with us. Here's a list for myself I came up with after chatting with @Peter Abrahamsen last week, trying to be opinionated rather than bland: • Longevity over adoption. • Implementation matters. - Transparency over abstraction. - Minimize dependencies. No, really. - Minimize number of languages used. - Conciseness of language is secondary. • Rewarding curiosity about implementation should be a first-class design goal. - Doesn’t matter what the architecture is; can others tell what the architecture is? - Encode knowledge first about the outside. Environment/context over algorithms. (tests) - Encode knowledge in the repo. No other place to look at. “Don’t make me talk to you.” - Knowledge automatically complains when it goes out of date. (tests) - Keep it easy to update. (domain-independent traces over domain-specific immediate UIs) - Organize knowledge autobiographically, in a cleaned up version history. (layers) • Make it tractable to delete features. - Encourage more forks. • Don’t charge for software. Messes with long-term incentives. (Charging for hosting/operational services is ok.) Comments most appreciated. I also worry that I'm too verbose in my comments, so feel free to tell me that 🙂
    Kartik Agaram
    w
    +4
    13 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Stefan

    Stefan

    3 years ago
    Going through a bunch of old notes, I found this quick draft of an "ontology of visual programming paradigms" — how would you cut that space into distinct categories?
    Stefan
    Duncan Cragg
    3 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Iridian

    Iridian

    3 years ago
    Couple of meta-questions from a newcomer after skimming through the history of this channel (and https://futureofcoding.org/ - maybe this could be in the topic?). Context for the questions is an incongruence between our own startup and the apparent, somewhat abstract and academic focus of this community. I'm looking to understand what people look for in this community, what kind of meaning, what incentives keeps everyone here? Sharing of thoughts, obviously; but there are always the questions of personal careers, fame, money, status. All of those nasty cynical things yet which in the end make all the difference. Specifically, I'm looking for what could we (our company) give and what could we potentially look for; to figure out how it could be worth our time to engage deeply and not just lurk and absorb any ideas? I'll expand on the context a bit. On one hand the thing we're building ticks (very) many of the boxes people are looking for here. This is why I'm opening my mouth now, actually. On the other hand we already 'have found the answers' for great many practical questions. So I feel like I couldn't sincerely participate in the high-level discussions which are based on "let's try to figure things out together", because, well, we've figured many things out already, committed to them, and are now going through the phase of actually implementing the stuff. I'll pick one concrete, central example: our language is javascript, enchanced with a transparent ORM to a global workspace of shared resources - powerful, familiar, but offers absolutely no chance for fundamental language design innovation. This would basically rule us out the interests of any people here for whom new language design is The Thing, The Reason To Be Here; maybe because they have a language research oriented academic career, maybe because of personal aspirations; maybe because this channel originates from a discussion group whose identity is new language design. And this is just one example, there are a lot of other similar ones. So finally, the personal question: if I "can't" participate in discussions sincerely without being an advocate, and I "can't" just expect people to jump on-board of our existing train of answers, but I still genuinely believe we've what it takes to answer the core problems put forth here, what should I do?
    Iridian
    jarm
    +3
    24 replies
    Copy to Clipboard