• Duncan Cragg

    Duncan Cragg

    3 years ago

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECatC6GXYAATLZW.jpg

    Duncan Cragg
    r
    3 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Kartik Agaram

    Kartik Agaram

    3 years ago
    File systems (and much else) should be databases (1995) http://okmij.org/ftp/papers/DreamOSPaper.html
    This paper is an attempt to imagine what an OS would look like and how it would work if looking for a word 'foo' in something and deleting/closing/stopping this something, -- be it a paragraph of text, a network connection, a subscribed newsgroup, a process -- would all require roughly the same sequence of mouse clicks or keystrokes, and would be understood and interpreted in the same spirit by the operating system.
    ASCII configuration files abound, for a very simple reason: they can be modified with any text editor from
    ex
    and
    edlin
    upwards, and can be viewed and created even without an editor, with a
    cat
    command.
    These two paragraphs feel contradictory. Text files already provide roughly the same sequence of operations to update. Can anybody tell what the article expects the benefits of databases to be? I see something about the CPU cycles to parse text files. But that seems to perversely ignore the complexities of using a database. Another take: your file system already has much that looks like a database with journalling and so on. Mission accomplished? Personal note: I've looked at several papers this week and been tempted to go implement them. This is a big shift compared to the past 5 years, while I've been slowly putting the foundations of the Mu computer together. It feels like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders, and I can start prototyping new ideas again. Anybody want to play with adding a stupid database before a file system? The Mu computer currently has no access to its local file system, so we have a blank slate to play with.
    Kartik Agaram
    Felix Kohlgrüber
    +1
    3 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Edward de Jong / Beads Project

    Edward de Jong / Beads Project

    3 years ago
    The late Joe Armstrong was experimenting with making everything a chunk in a universe of chunks, and each chunk had a SHA hash as its address, and then everything was immutable, and you could never break a link in a web page. He has a bunch of lectures about it. He did not like file systems either. When you build a languages like Erlang on top of the concept that things are immutable, a filesystem is a glaring violation of that principle!
    Edward de Jong / Beads Project
    Kartik Agaram
    +3
    21 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Konrad Hinsen

    Konrad Hinsen

    3 years ago
    Is anyone aware of work on what I'd call "evolution-safe programming"? The question is how one can write software in such a way that every part in every layer can evolve freely without breaking everything depending on it. There are some aspect of this in [Dark](https://darklang.com/) (recently discussed here), and in [Unison](http://unisonweb.org/), but is there any work on theoretical foundations or practical evaluation of proposed approaches?
    Konrad Hinsen
    i
    +2
    13 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • ogadaki

    ogadaki

    3 years ago
    Is that count for you? Because the first can be seen as domain specific languages and maybe you meant comparing text languages?
    ogadaki
    1 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • Dan Cook

    Dan Cook

    3 years ago
    Monads are like Schrödinger's cat! (Or the container for it, anyway)
    Dan Cook
    i
    2 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • w

    wtaysom

    3 years ago
    (function pointers, I'm looking at you) as well as the call by value and call by reference distinction, which doesn't exactly go away in reference-to-objects languages.
    w
    i
    +2
    15 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • d

    Doug Moen

    3 years ago
    The "mutable variables and immutable values" model is less complex than the "implicit references to mutable objects" model. See replies for more information.
    d
    Kartik Agaram
    +3
    16 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • shalabh

    shalabh

    3 years ago
    Uniform references (Python) are less incidentally complex than value/reference/pointer variants (C++) because you don't worry about which variant of syntax and semantics to deal with, when working with any business model object.
    shalabh
    1 replies
    Copy to Clipboard
  • shalabh

    shalabh

    3 years ago
    In most programming languages, when you define a composite type (e.g.
    class User {string name}
    ), you define both - the business shape ('a user entity has one name') and also the memory layout used to represent it internally. Are there any languages that let you define these separately?
    shalabh
    Dan Cook
    +4
    19 replies
    Copy to Clipboard