archive-org.com » ORG » A » ALARMINGDEVELOPMENT.ORG

Total: 134

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • The Summer of Code
    can dump it to text but people don t do that so that they can work on it So it s a mystery to me why to this day we still require computer languages to have a defining syntax instead of a syntatical projection Preston L Bannister Posted April 27 2009 at 1 56 pm Permalink If there is a two way transform from the internal form to text you can call whichever you want the source Having program source in text has other potential benefits Text can be scanned and manipulated by generic text oriented tools Otherwise you up having to implement all the equivalents Hint you will not imagine all the possibilities and will not have time to implement all that you know about Arguably this is what killed IBM s VisualAge for Java an otherwise interesting product of which at least some notions got recycled in Eclipse In any case interested in what you come up with Preston L Bannister Posted April 27 2009 at 2 01 pm Permalink Er Daniel in fact if you dig around you will find folk who have indeed dumped databases to text ran a Perl usually script over the text and re loaded the database You can do some transforms on text that would be prohibitive to attempt with database operations This is by no means the usual case but tremendously useful when needed John Z Bo Zabroski Posted April 27 2009 at 2 44 pm Permalink Preston While I see your point I think database operations is a little vague Where I work we love SQL CLR integration services It is quite the opposite from what you describe we do some transforms on text that would be prohibitive in other languages The only time we munge data dumps is in ETL procedures Also the concurrency abilities of a database are generally faster than writing the code in most languages There is a finer detail here though By dumping a data structure into plain text you need some way to then blit that text into a new data structure Jonathan is not proposing a dump at all Instead he is talking in terms of an isomprhic projection from one data structure to another effectively saying they are equivalent By doing so the data structures themselves will never get out of sync and that in itself is a huge boost to maintenance programmers Hope that is clear I do like the fact you push back on what others are saying as you are noting a common objection I see from practitioners More than likely Jonathan will face similar objections Nat Posted April 27 2009 at 2 59 pm Permalink Hooray That was my big question about your last paper will you stick with the Subtext programming model Two things blew me away in your presentation I saw at OOPSLA One was a truly live programming environment even more live than REPLs and image based programming environments The other was the copy paste

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=222 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Category Archives: Announcements
    Guy Steele Actually the talk seemed to go over pretty well I have posted a video of essentially the same talk As always comments welcome Also posted in General Comments closed Onward to OOPSLA By Jonathan Edwards Published May 13 2007 My paper was accepted Phew Now all I have to do is implement it See you in Montreal Also posted in General Comments closed Open Subtext By Jonathan Edwards Published May 7 2006 Bowing to popular demand I am releasing the source of Subtext It can be downloaded from http subtextual org subtext zip It can be imported as an Eclipse project Posted in Announcements Comments closed First Class Copy Paste By Jonathan Edwards Published March 10 2006 I have posted a draft of my latest OOPSLA submission First Class Copy Paste As always comments are welcome I apologize that this paper is so hard to read It is very technical and formal and all about internals not the user interface I felt that I needed to precisely define how Subtext works Posted in Announcements Comments closed Now Playing By Jonathan Edwards Published October 14 2005 I have produced a Flash video of my upcoming OOPSLA presentation It is divided into two parts both about 15 minutes long The first part recapitulates the previous video of building a factorial function There are some new features but if you already watched the older video you can skip it without missing much The Posted in Announcements Comments closed OOPSLA meetup By Jonathan Edwards Published October 4 2005 If you are going to be at OOPSLA and are interested in getting together drop me an email We could organize a BOF session and perhaps also have a group dinner Posted in Announcements Comments closed 10K By Jonathan Edwards Published May 31 2005

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?cat=3 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Coherence — The Director’s Cut
    00 am Permalink Nat No it is correct The model does not coordinate anything except for its own internal state process As I ve told you before this is a topic that kills programmer brain cells It is also not as simple as The model then changes state in response and announces change notifications that cause other parts of the system to change to be in sync with the model This is only a trivial case for coordination ted stockwell Posted April 24 2009 at 12 21 pm Permalink I really like the concept of coherent reaction I am currently building my own model driven framework and the bootstrapping of the model classes is a case where coherence would really make like simpler for me The order in which the model classes are bootstraps is very implementation depenedent I have spent many hours rewriting the bootstrapping code because every time I make a change to the framework I bust the bootstrapping because the order in which things have to be done changes I would very much like the bootstrapping code to just figure it out for itself However it seems to me that it would be impossible to get developers to adopt a new language just to get the benefits of coherence I think you would be better off creating libraries in mainstream languages that implement coherence Once developers have become addicted to the coherence library in the language of their choice it would be easier to sell them a whole new language with coherence as a principle feature I can imagine such a library for Java for instance an API that would create coherent proxies for JavaBean instances and would implement coherence when changes are made to the beans Perhaps creating some annotations that automagically make some classes coherent would be appealing to developers I would be interested in contributing to such a project Vladimir Konrad Posted April 25 2009 at 3 10 pm Permalink Hello Adjusting the first argument instead of the second is an arbitrary convention Would not it make sense to adjust the arguments which were derived task2 task1 name task2 start task1 end here you are linking task2 start to task1 end should not therefore the task1 end change because it was linked and not by convention of changing the 1st argument Interesting stuff BTW Kind regards Vlad subpixel Posted May 12 2009 at 12 31 am Permalink Hello there after a semi random walk or diversional websurf from a video about a multitouch VJ application 1 I happened across a list of visual programming languages 2 from which the link subtextual org leapt out of the page at me for reasons you might discover to be obvious and from there I came to read your Coherent Reaction draft 3 The problem you were describing reminded me about something I read about reasonably recently and the paragraph An analysis of Adobeâ s desktop applications indicated that event handling logic comprised a third of the code

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=217 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Draft Onward paper
    respect to history Roughly this is how SL2â s VisualStaateManager works History is really the one aspect of Harel HSMs that are really weird too Iâ ll talk more about this later We can debate why we want or need history constructs in the problem domain Such discussion drives at the heart of simple systems taking away until there is nothing left to take away The missing conversational state section is about using state machines in this way I hope I get a chance to write it I am thinking though that I probably already have too many ideas in section 3 Jonathan Of course you have the chance to write it Just delete ideological rants like the following This is work in progress Tree derivation has been imple mented and studied in prior work on Subtext The key idea of coherent reaction is not yet implemented The Coherence language involves a number of novel ideas and unconven tional approaches â too much to explain in one conference paper much less evaluate This paper focuses on two of these ideas and mentions the others only in passing Therefore the discussion is informal which may frustrate readers expect ing precision This is a dilemma Programming languages are a web of interlocking design choices I believe that fun damental progress requires that we alter many of these de sign choices at the same time including some that are so deeply entrenched that they have become assumptions Be cause these choices are interlocking altering just one at a time keeps us locked into the few sweet spots that existing languages cluster around But that is all we can do if we only discuss ideas that can be precisely deï ned and rigor ously evaluated in 12 pages This paper tries to communicate a new idea in language design informally and to show how it is useful when combined with a set of other new ideas Stuff like this could get your paper rejected as it sacrifices content for hubris On the mailing list Thomas Lord rewrote it but he missed the point that you donâ t need it at all In fact right now your references are pretty weak You have no room for poetry Cut and paste that paragraph into your Programming Liberation Manifesto and be done with it Also the whole paragraph flows awkwardly out of your introduction of your two key concepts coherent reaction and virtual trees Iâ ll take a brief moment to mention what references should absolutely be in your paper â Andromeda Project is a database framework that addresses similar concerns to coherent reaction except that it is targeted primarily toward the backend database as opposed to GUIs Andromeda does provide a GUI but it cannot capture the same sequence orderings that its database plumbing can In fact the GUI and the backend are separate house separate bed projects with different objectives Andromeda uses database triggers to enforce â œcausality is encapsulationâ â UK Researcher PMD Gray spent the greater portion of his research career working toward his magnum opus Functional Approach to Database Management http www amazon com Functional Approach Data Management Heterogeneous dp 3540003754 Currently he works on modular functional compilers targeted toward the database domain â Mattias Felleisen was the first researcher to publish papers on the techniques Morris and Graham used to build Viaweb It focuses on using continuations to mainatain conversatoinal state Many web frameworks including Seaside Apache Cocoon and JBoss Seam use continuations as a way to enforce â œconversational stateâ JBoss Seam in particular codifies this metaphor as Workspaces and Conversations The implementation technique involves the use of â œSubversion of Controlâ a twist on aspect oriented dependency injection that allows dependency outjection in addition to the traditional injection The reason for this is to allow web layer aware IoC See JSR 299 for a Sun community process specification it is not Seam but tries to address the same problems Continuations are currently the trendy technique for developing complex web â œapplicationsâ where state must be maintained somewhere between requests You need to address continuations if you want your problem domain to be the Web So far it looks like from the comments of your paper here and elsewhere that nobody understands what it is your finangling for Section 2 3 Point 2 says what differentiates you from continuations â œIt can see the pending post state of other ï elds But in no case can it see the consequences of any changes it makes because that would create a causal loop whereby the reaction depends upon its own effects â I would argue very strongly that the way continuations work â passing an intermediate state to â œthe rest of the computationâ and getting back a final result â violates encapsulation However what I have a hard time arguing is why violating encapsulation matters I think it effects readability and that has been my argument for some time now I have a few other sneaky reasons why theyâ re bad but require proof for the average programmer to understand layman reader http www ibm com developerworks library j contin html The references section is excellent and includes most of the key academic sources on continuations in web programming The original paper from which the term subversion of control was eventually coined by the JBoss Seam developers Christian Queinnec Inverting back the inversion of control or continuations versus page centric programming ACM SIGPLAN Notices v 38 n 2 February 2003 doi 10 1145 772970 772977 Iâ ve only edited the first few pages of your paper so far but as you can see I am trying to be agile here and give you feedback as I make corrections Unfortu nately state machines have a predeï ned set of states so they can not handle the complex dynamic states of mainstream interactive applications You need to give me an example so that I know I should care I e Prolog doesnâ t allow all sorts of rules only Horn clauses Show me a mainstream interactive application that cannot be captured by FSM combined with plain old OO problem space abstraction Controllers are full of hard wired connec tions and subtle collaborations that defeat modularity not to mention comprehension You sound like me here However I am not an academic publishing a paper I donâ t need to motivate my hatred of MVC with examples As a practitioner all I have to do is find something better and even then my employer doesnt care why However to pushback against myself I do know why Controllers are bad Typically I quote Balcer and Mellorâ s Executable UML On page 236 they make it very clear that MVC doesnâ t jive with Model Driven Architecture â œThe first rule of control partitioning is that you do not make controller objects â The second rule of control partitioning is that you do not make controller objects â This is easily the best programming advice Iâ ve ever received in my career by far This book practically prints money for anybody who reads it and understands its teachings H S Lahman is a Model Driven Architecture guru with an upcoming book Heâ s in his 70s and knows more OO than anyone You should ask him to fully explain to you why Controller objects are evil Some reasons include poor OO problem space abstraction lack of testability disobedience to the Open Closed Principle and turning objects from peers into trees The most obvious emblematic code smell of an OO project gone wrong is Controller objects including inheritance based HSMs You really have to be able to explain how Controllers hard wire collaborations because from experience teaching my coworkerss and other real world practitioners they have a hard time believing it In fact on Artima com recently Jim Coplien and Trygve Reenskaug recently proclaimed they invented a new architecture Data Context Interaction I RIPPED THEM APART for how poor their article was They claimed that they supported rich ways for a view to interact with a model but every one of their examples used Controller objects to hardwire activity networks They continuously tried to say that it was simple to change it to make it dynamic but never did so Itâ s beenover a week now and their example hasnt been updated I guess removing hardwired sequences of collaborations isnt as easy as they thought it might be The funny thing is Trygve claimed his program was extremely readable to the point where just by reading it you could tell there was no bugs Well if you hardwire a huge chunk of logic and take away the dynamic interactions that make OO what it is supposed to be polymorphism for dynamic substitution of behavior then of course it is readable It is a line by line recipe on how to bake a cake The keysteeps are hardcoded This is like going to Costco and just buying the damn cake already baked and topped with icing Alright my corrections arenâ t even on page 2 yet The precise order of interre lated event ï rings is often undocumented and so context dependent that it can defy documentation Why is context dependency bad From a Model driven architecture Object oriented Analysis perspective I know the answer But from experience I can say your referee will not know the answer I e what is wrong with â œcontext oriented programmingâ You donâ t know when you will be called back by your subscriptions what callbacks have already been called what callbacks will be subsequently called and what callbacks will be triggered implicitly within your callback Coordinating changes to communal state amidst this chaos can be bafï ing and is far from modular Callbacks are Hell You have to explain WHY not knowing all these things leads to bad design I e people champion separation of concerns but programs equally suffer from a lack of integration of concerns In other words race conditions With callbacks you are typically required to litter your code with locks to make sure that state is not changed until the callback fires A good example of this is discussed by Bill Wagner in More Effective C in the section on single threaded apartments and WinForms and WPF programming It talks about various design problems in WinForms and WPF Allen Holub in Taming Java Threads talks about how the AWT framework that SWT and Swing are built upon is flawed and easily leads to deadlocks he also provides a workaround in addition to how he thinks itshouldâ ve originally been designed Callbacks suffer from another problem which is that there is no current language that allows the programmatic interfaces to have constraints on the order of when things must occur PMD Gray talks about this when he slams C for not being scalable as a language for codifying rules Encapsulating rules inside methods buries those rules from visibility of other rules thus making it impossible to order rule firings correctly to ensure ACID properties Callbacks are just a specifically more sinister form of encapsulation because the client programmer who passes in the callback has no control over timing only modularityâ which is actually no modularity at all I would also change â œCallbacks are Hellâ to â œSome programmers colloquially refer to this as Callback Hell â We will present a sequence of interactions in a Read Eval Print Loop REPL Programmer input is preï xed with a printed values with a and program output with a http www ece osu edu fasiha Brooks Planning html Wha pam Rodney Brooks is the man and another great source in my learning of how to build great systems Frank A Krueger Posted April 11 2009 at 12 33 pm Permalink And now a perspective from an everyday programmer 1 This was a very enjoyable read Your running example is something we all face obviously your plan and I appreciate that you didn t take too many shortcuts A group of friends and I are going to try to implement some of your Coherence VM ideas it was that interesting to us 2 The operator needs a bit more explanation Does it walk down trees looking for the first node with that name Your error example is intriguing and I would like to know a bit more about this funny operator Should be clearer in the figures I have added The derivation is physically stored behind the field The operator jumps behind the field 3 I know you have covered your virtual tree ideas in other papers but please reference the one paper to rule them all so that we can get a refresher course on the differences between variation and derivation these words are just too similar for my taste Best paper is Modular Generation and Customization 4 I can t believe you are discussing a textual language But at least your REPL has good prompt symbols 5 A concise syntax explanation would help a bit I m most concerned with these syntaxes and what they mean foo Calc bar function call foo Calc fast True bar function call with keyword args foo Calc I have no clue passes sequence as first arg Clarified in paper And then if we replace the derivation with variation my brain overflows Not to dumb your paper down too much but maybe a few analogies with current languages would clear mystery 6 Buffer seems to be an odd name for your little utility I think you are using the word in the Electrical Engineering sense but it really is painful to keep that sense in mind while reading a CS paper Would you please just call it Catch to match Erlang s function renamed to latch Thanks for writing this paper I have found it to be very eye opening You are welcome Thanks for the comments Frank John Z Bo Zabroski Posted April 11 2009 at 1 21 pm Permalink Frank Please target the Mono VM as your testbed Miguel de Icaza has told me or perhaps I misheard he feels stuff like the dependencyobject dependencyproperty system in net 3 0 should have been folded into the VM and I agree Lee Chou Posted April 13 2009 at 1 18 am Permalink I ve been thinking about the reactions that you have and how it might be really slow O n ways of ordering n terms and this is without even considering chains of reactions For error checking you cannot terminate as soon as you find a coherent solution in case another ordering of the reactions give you another solution a logical bug in the code I m not completely convinced that there isn t a correct ordering for the terms all the time if there is one correct ordering I don t see a case where another order would work without running into the previous problem Ya know the reaction dispatch seems complex enough to possibly be turing complete like how the macro preprocessor in c is If a cycle is detected or any other error occurs the entire input transaction is aborted I think since reactions are the core of your language you should explain the cycles and how to differentiate from recursions that are okay as well as the other errors A theoretical analysis would be best analyze as a finite state machine but if not it would be nice to see some evidence or concrete examples One way of speeding things up is to remember the value of the attributes that you have seen so far This normally wouldn t be a good idea for a general purpose PL but in your language you have static attributes and derivatives that have no side effects suggesting that you can express attributes as functions This can allow for automatic dynamic programming and it should be pretty useful I really like the way you use the virtual tree for buffering It s much better than error catching in typical PL s Anyways hope to see the next revision of the paper John Z Bo Zabroski Posted April 13 2009 at 12 02 pm Permalink Lee I m pretty sure the cost can be amortized using multi stage programming Since the programmer develops his solution interactively in the REPL using a live programming language it is at worst case a topological sort on the whole tree As Coherence is a reactive model for embedded systems as opposed to transformational once the data flow is decided for all bindings in the system there is no need at run time to have computational costs associated with deciding a total ordering of instructions Moreover the difficulty in solving for a data flow path through the system is proportional in difficulty to the interdependencies in the system However once solved for they are inherently parallel such as a hardware design language like Verilog or VHDL The comparison to Verlog and VHDL should help you they re for high speed integrated circuits Also Jonathan doesn t seem to allow for RS Latch style circuits given his rule that a transaction must change a field to a single value and why would you want to invert an input within the transaction responsible for processing it As it is a live programming language it can and should be extended to support multi stage programming and gradual typing Currently Jonathan shows no examples of where trees can be used as prototypes Using them in this way requires a globally unique identifier system as names of trees and names of nodes in each tree would no longer be globally distinct Moreover since it is declarative the compiler can transparently perform a Flyweight pattern for storing prototypes with largely the same default values The default value does not need to be copied we only need a memory location that points to a default value This is how Windows Presentation Foundation WPF manages

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=205 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Time is of the Essence
    on it just changed names I went back to calling it Subtext since that seems to be my brand But now I find it confusing that each version of Subtext is so different Dercsár Péter Posted February 4 2013 at 9 13 am Permalink OFF How does this post machine know who I am It uses my avatar from StackOverflow Matrix know me or what OFF Daniel Posted February 4 2013 at 1 10 pm Permalink StackOverflow and this blog both uses Gravatar The way it works is that your email is hashed and used as a link to display a picture fetched from Gravatar Gravatar doesn t necessarily know your email but it has a picture associated to it anyways sort of I don t know for sure but it looks like setting your avatar on StackOverflow changes your Gravatar Check out Wikipedias article on Gravatar and Gravatars web site Gravatars web site has a StackOverflow logo on it Chris Parnin Posted February 4 2013 at 3 39 pm Permalink Most programmers don t need to deal directly with time at this level But get into real time or high frequency trade clearing systems and you ll start to see time solidify in system design It is not surprising out of that ecosystem that temporal query and event query languages were invented Programming language tool builders researchers must always tackle the challenges that regular developers don t But there must be a start David Barbour Posted February 4 2013 at 4 43 pm Permalink Managed time is useful in a lot of domains music and multimedia control systems video games etc I think most programmers and most problem domains would benefit from managed time Even the exceptions benefit indirectly with respect to process control and other peripheral issues There was an excellent article on the subject in 2009 Computing Needs Time Most programmers don t understand why they should deal directly with time at this level Most programmers aren t competent enough to even recognize much less comprehend what they did wrong with regards to their last concurrency project Joshua Marinacci Posted February 4 2013 at 3 56 pm Permalink I hope you will still publish your thought even if you don t submit a talk I find the topic of time in a programmatic sense to be fascinating I agree that we don t have a good handle on it yet at least in mainstream tools Thanks Josh philip andrew Posted February 4 2013 at 8 25 pm Permalink Your right not to discourage people but perhaps if you wrote it in a different way with different attitude The problem is that when people are constrained by what they know they cannot consider the things that they don t know When people consider the impossible they sometimes find a way to solve the impossible problem For example maybe people shouldn t be building these programs up from nothing and function calls to api s but they could building

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=739?shared=email&msg=fail (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Down the rabbit hole of types
    been better to focus on the structure of the data first and the format second Ideally the structure of the data would then have a reflection in the language type system I proposed casting elements in the language that would allow a data format to be mutated into other formats and versions of the type This goes against the Object Orientated paradigm but sounds like it aligns a little more with what you re doing I ll be interested to see what you come up with Regards David Sean McDirmid Posted January 23 2013 at 12 27 am Permalink First class functions are also bad because they lead to control inversion which I find intrinsically hard for users even more than complex types It will be difficult to do functional orgami but then array programming languages got away without first class functions just fine I spent some time trying to create a new OO type system that supports global type inference none of this damn hybrid typing or local type inference But then I saw that it wasn t really adding to my live programming story so put it on the back burner I m afraid that my love of static typing might be clouding my vision somewhat if you have code continuously executing isn t there something you can do with that to make dynamic feel more static Jonathan Edwards Posted January 23 2013 at 9 19 am Permalink The problem with live code execution is that it only explores one branch of a conditional at a time or one case of a pattern match or one route through a polymorphic dispatch Static types are like a quantum superposition of all possible execution paths So static types are the truest form of live code This is one of the fundamental problems with live code I would mention in the position paper we discussed writing Eyal Lotem Posted January 23 2013 at 10 23 am Permalink Only if these static types contain enough information Agda style dependent static types really cater to this definition whereas Java style types that degenerate into information free Object types Haskell is a nice middle ground As an aside and an agreement with many others your notion of simplicity seems very weird if it includes subtyping but excludes ordinary functions as values What notion of simplicity are you using Surely it s not Kolmogorov simplicity because then you d just end up with the lambda calculus or System F Jonathan Edwards Posted January 23 2013 at 5 03 pm Permalink I don t have subtypes or function types The only form of subsumption is via template instantiation which amounts to static duck types You can partially simulate subclassing that way but it was misleading to imply I am supporting subclasses Sorry It is probably fruitless to discuss type theory details until I write things up precisely By simple I mean easy to learn and use for a novice programmer That is my primary goal Jake Brownson Posted January 23 2013 at 1 22 pm Permalink Static types are like a quantum superposition of all possible execution paths So static types are the truest form of live code Wow what a great way to put it David Barbour Posted January 23 2013 at 1 54 pm Permalink Live coding depends on ability to change code at one locus to effect behavioral change elsewhere I wonder how you would control program behavior if you re already executing all paths simultaneously If you want to explore multiple execution paths simultaneously in an interesting way I suggest pursuing probabilistic programming models Sean McDirmid Posted January 23 2013 at 7 34 pm Permalink Static types aim for omniscience and achieve either very little or cascade into exponential time problems that probably will never be solved efficiently I m totally a static types guy and deeply appreciate the feedback early error detection code completion it provides but I pragmatically think that we will always need to debug our code by running it on very sample inputs There must be some unification potential their and maybe I just need to shut off some of my biases to see it Jonathan Edwards Posted January 23 2013 at 8 11 pm Permalink Totally agree Sean My types are also prototypes so you always get to see at least one prototypical execution per def call instantiation site You are right that types fail at omniscience What I am observing is the obvious fact that when you decrease the expressiveness of the language its types become correspondingly more knowledgeable My design philosophy these days is semantic minimalism Sean McDirmid Posted January 24 2013 at 8 40 pm Permalink If you are aiming for semantic minimalism don t forget your wabi sabi where you allow for and tolerate a lot of imperfection Static types are often a trap into the admirable but ultimately fruitless pursuit of perfection and elegance The idea that one can know everything statically Jonathan Edwards Posted January 24 2013 at 9 47 pm Permalink Sodesu sensei David Barbour Posted January 23 2013 at 5 58 am Permalink You will ultimately want to support dynamic behaviors If you don t do it explicitly people will just build ad hoc informally specified bug ridden slow implementations of half of Common Lisp to use Greenspun in his original context They ll use that to pass their poorly typed representations of functions working around Subtext rather than with it Do you provide something else to fulfill the roles of first class functions In my work with reactive models I ve found that unstructured partial application is often problematic i e for ensuring safe consumption of streams avoiding space leaks reasoning about information flow However by enforcing a little structure consistent with a multi stage programming model I can safely use dynamic behaviors in a reactive model The structural constraints are simple 1 A pure function represented in a dataflow can be applied to a static constant or

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=724?shared=email&msg=fail (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Turing on programming
    Lisp Forth Refal Kernel Subtext is a sufficient cause Daniel Sobral Posted June 27 2012 at 10 55 am Permalink That assumes programming is a drudge While programming in some languages like Java is definitely a drudge to me I haven t found that to be the general case Michael Chermside Posted July 18 2012 at 8 24 am Permalink I think Turing was correct and in fact I DO find myself automating the drudge like portions of my work That doesn t mean I do no drudge work I usually need to do it the hard way a few times before I feel ready to automate it and some tasks are short enough or hard enough to automate that it s faster to do it by hand than to automate it But in a certain sense the drudgery is bounded if any particular task takes significant amounts of effort and makes no creative demands then it will get automated The programmer will still have to engage in drudge work but it won t be the SAME drudge work every day John Z Bo Zabroski Posted July 31 2012 at 9 11 pm Permalink No With PLT Redexes and rewrite logic theories I think we are making good progress towards Turing s vision Do you think he meant otherwise Alexandre Cossette Posted August 2 2012 at 12 27 pm Permalink Turing simply describes a compiler He was right nobody write instruction tables anymore we write high level code philip andrew Posted September 18 2012 at 1 44 am Permalink What is the status of Coherence 2 or Subtext 2 Do you try to integrate them together What language are you implementing this next one in If you want people to use it on the UI javascript seems good also people are using NodeJS a lot more lately so JS on the server side is a ok but ugly option Haskell if you want the academic people to follow it Jonathan Edwards Posted September 27 2012 at 8 36 am Permalink Hi Philip I owe everyone an update Basically I realized I needed some kind of type system and that has bogged me down all year Teaching a new class this semester hasn t helped either With the new type system I will be up to Subtext 4 philip andrew Posted October 1 2012 at 12 19 am Permalink Hi Jonathan Thats great I hope Subtext 4 is something that I can use as a library or adapt to use as a component of sorts I m not sure how you implemented it this time or if you just had the time to do a paper rather than implementation Here are some ideas suggestions but I guess you already thought through many For Subtext I can imagine as a Scala programmer I would like to be able to edit the Scala code using an editor like the Scala Worksheet https github com scala ide scala worksheet wiki Getting Started where the

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=711?shared=email&msg=fail (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The voice whispering bulllshhhiiittt
    monad Stay outside that box dude Andrew Greenberg Posted June 12 2012 at 12 25 am Permalink Iconoclasm is amusing in small doses but it isn t argument and it isn t insightful merely because it is iconoclastic I never heard Zed apologize for janky leaky mongrels which he abandoned nor do I see him acknowledging the wonderful things that have been built over things he considered problematic Instead a constant flow of pejorative adjectives and rhetorical questions to which he knows but does not credit then answers is not reasoning Frankly I found nothing inspiring in what he said I don t think the status quo is wonderful but I know its what it is I know its miles better than what we had and I know that while there was once a time when the janky leaky code he wrote was meaningful and enabling for me his stuff too which is bad by today s standards has been relegated to oblivion I claim no standing to judge another or his code my gorgeous functional procedural 2 man hacks in writing seminal computer games that have no meaning today do not justify it as the best solution His one liners and mostly four letter word derivatives about OO is hardly an argument Like the law which I have been hacking quite a bit lately these things are the worst things in the world until you consider the alternatives I can easily fire at things and say we have more to do But to do that I realize that in time I MUST STILLL stand on the shoulders of giants There are fire throwers in the OO advocacy world as well but you know I find their arguments far more interesting practical and personally provocative than I found Zed s remarks Like a commenter on Vimeo I want my 30 minutes back Note that I could have said I want the months I spent trying to make mongrels work without adopting add on code to restart systems that failed back but that would be petty just as were his arguments Too many four letter words today I didn t find them all that refreshing Advocacy in this community shouldn t read like a Mamet play Zed s talks aren t likely to win a Tony Jonathan Edwards Posted June 12 2012 at 9 09 am Permalink You re right I know I should disapprove of Zed but I just can t help laughing David Shockley Posted June 12 2012 at 4 52 am Permalink I feel this way constantly I m not sure what to do about it on a small day to day scale I try to use it as a motivation to improve But I feel like the real problems are in the tools languages paradigms and methodologies we use My fear is that the real problem is not even their but further back that our desires are inherently contradictory Like wanting turing completeness and automatic proofs our

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=702?shared=email&msg=fail (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive