[HN Gopher] Native-GUI distributed system in a tweet
___________________________________________________________________
Native-GUI distributed system in a tweet
Author : mpweiher
Score : 34 points
Date : 2022-08-10 19:27 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.metaobject.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.metaobject.com)
| junon wrote:
| I don't agree with the assertion that "[Rust, C, etc.] are not
| general purpose languages but instead DSLs for algorithms". This
| is one of those "profound" statements that I simply find
| nonsensical, as if the semantics themselves somehow made a point.
|
| Conversely, I see Objective-S as just a batteries-included,
| insanely high level declarative language. How is that any less of
| a DSL, per the creator's logic?
|
| Plus, saying that your language is the "first [ _real_ ] general
| purpose language" is a bit smug.
| xmonkee wrote:
| Also, even if you were to buy it's premise, the statement is
| still untrue. There is also stuff like Red and Wolfram
| language.
| mpweiher wrote:
| > I don't agree with the assertion that "[Rust, C, etc.] are
| not general purpose languages but instead DSLs for algorithms".
|
| The reasoning is given. How is the reasoning incorrect, other
| than colliding with beliefs and assumptions we make that are so
| implicit we don't even see them?
|
| But very briefly: ALGOL.
|
| > How is that any less of a DSL, per the creator's logic?
|
| Very simple, from a software-architectural POV: it includes
| call/return as one of the architectural styles it supports. But
| it also supports other architectural styles, ideally including
| building your own, though that is still a bit thin. So n = 1,
| vs n > 1.
|
| See also: https://blog.metaobject.com/2019/02/why-architecture-
| oriente...
| wk_end wrote:
| The reasoning is given, but - ironically - no "connection" is
| given between the idea that "these languages don't have
| enough mechanisms for connection" and "other languages aren't
| general purpose programming languages" or "other languages
| are DSLs for writing algorithms". That connection isn't
| really obvious. For one thing, lots of things I do on a day-
| to-day basis in languages that aren't Objective-S don't
| "feel" particularly "algorithmic" - for instance, when I'm
| modeling data in a class hierarchy or as a composition of
| types, using mechanisms built into the languages of choice,
| am I just "writing algorithms"? What about when I'm plumbing
| stuff between APIs and databases? Writing - or using - Lisp
| macros? Etc.
|
| It's an issue of terminology, I'd say - you're using very
| sweeping, imprecise language to describe your critique. "This
| particular mechanism is a useful feature other languages
| lack" would be received much better than "other languages are
| fundamentally only suited to writing algorithms, rather than
| general-purpose software" when we've got 60+ years of every
| kind of software imaginable written in them. Arguing about
| the criteria for what "general purpose" means, this far down
| the line, is vastly less interesting than actual features,
| and I've read two blog posts and I still don't really see,
| specifically, what Objective-S has that's so paradigm
| shifting. Reprogrammable literals, so I can embed URLs in my
| code without delimiters or anything? Syntax for "connecting"
| things?
| ducktective wrote:
| >is a bit smug.
|
| I choose unorthodox and provocative ideas over conservative
| bore of docile academic terms any day.
|
| You call it being smug, I call it scientific confidence needed
| for progress.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Perhaps the biggest problem with Objective-S is that it isn't
| tied to a FAANG?
| junon wrote:
| > unorthodox and provocative ideas
|
| Marketing drivel. You choose marketing drivel over science.
| That's how I read that sentence.
| mpweiher wrote:
| It ain't "marketing drivel". If it were, it would be an
| utter failure.
|
| It is a profound insight.
|
| It might be a _wrong_ profound insight, but "drivel" it
| ain't.
| westoncb wrote:
| I agree it's a bit smug, but I can see an argument why
| _something like that_ (not familiar with Objective-S itself in
| anyway) might be considered more general purpose--though it 's
| a bit of a stretch still imo:
|
| To start, I think DSLs for algorithms is a bit off; it's more
| like DSLs for manual memory management. But I think the
| significant thing is that those languages are closer to a
| natural way of speaking about the "execution environment" of a
| computer vs that of human thought, which is essentially the gap
| or spectrum which programming languages attempt to span.
|
| And it makes a certain kind of sense to talk about generality
| of languages in terms of the set of human thoughts which they
| are effectively applicable to realizing. But this is very much
| against intuition when speaking of the generality of abstract
| structures since there are common, specific meanings in
| connection within them, and in computing that's typically
| what's meant. But, if you do look at it in the other sense,
| something higher level is going to have higher generality than
| something lower level.
|
| Just playing devil's advocate 'cause I was curious where they
| might be coming from with it (because it sounds like such
| nonsense at first).
| alexashka wrote:
| What is the difference between this and creating a GUI the good
| old fashioned way and having a textfield subclass that knows how
| to two-way bind its value to a remote value?
|
| In other words, if we ignore syntax, what is the fundamentally
| _new_ capability?
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| Developer productivity by the looks of it
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| Interesting though it appears to be a straightforward
| server/client application so not sure why it's called
| distributed. That said I'm confused about what Objective-S is
| even after reading the about page (http://objective.st/About).
| oceankid wrote:
| The language on the website seems to be targeted to an audience
| with knowledge of a subset of languages. Instead it would help
| if it talked about the problem it seems to solve for a regular
| "general purpose" programmer.
|
| Doesn't help that the author comes off as super defensive.
| mpweiher wrote:
| ,, Client-server model is a distributed application structure
| ..."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-server_model
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| I guess technically it's correct then. Distributed always
| makes me think of p2p systems.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-13 23:01 UTC)