I’m an opponent of him in many ways. I overall agree with your assessment using the word “arbitrary decisions from god.” In the past, I would’ve even called him out since I was blunt in a brutally-honest way.
His death saddened many Lobsters seemingly more than “it’s sad someone else died.” Maybe there’s something about him that hits home for them. I decided I’d comment on just the good aspects of what he was doing from the perspective of an ex-devout-Christian and current agnostic that respects people at least acting on their principles even when it costs them. That’s all.
From what I have read, he was impossible to work with because he would be absolutely set on things without giving any explanation other than “this is the right way”. A lot of the decisions for temple OS were not better but just random decisions “from god”.
re homogeneous OS. Exactly! I was thinking it should be first or early on reading it. Then, I thought maybe author just assumed everyone heard about it. I focused on LISP/Smalltalk. It definitely should’ve been mentioned, though, since it competed with the C family of languages for systems programming, was safe, fast compiles, and whole school ran on it at one point.
re just like LISP machine. No, see my article. There’s barely any comparison except the simplicity and fast iterations of the base language. Ok, let’s say you had an error in your app which was due to your OS. You could load it up in the IDE seeing the error plus the current state of the app. If it was OS, you could load its internals. Then, you could hot-fix the running system with changes propagated throughout the OS.
Far as I know, Oberon was miles away from ever doing that. It’s that kind of thing that made me do counterpoints on Wirth where simplicity, esp for compiler, shouldn’t be main focus. I’d rather have the complexity of implementing a LISP machine if it meant my job as a developer on average project was that much more productive. Likewise, complex compilers like LLVM make code super-fast. I’d like to have both fast-to-compile and fastest-when-running as options. Wirth only wanted former.
So, it was homogeneous, easy to program, and easy to compile. It wasn’t near the LISP experience, though. That’s the gap I want folks perfecting imperative languages to close. One of them anyway.
Many programmers push Worse is Better saying it’s profitable and/or inevitable. Terry Davis worked on what he believed was The Right Thing no matter what it cost. He’s dead. The Temple[OS] he gave his life for will live on. Maybe his work or dedication will inspire other people. Hopefully. :)
This makes me think of something that I didn’t get into here which is that in practice, erroneous behavior is often the result of several errors. So if I have a concurrency issue debugging that might also uncover a logic issue. They get fixed as part of the same bug but are different parts. The way I presented the separation here is a simplification of reality but I think there’s value in analyzing errors through this lens of thinking vs. implementation. As I was working through this blog post, it sort of reminded me of when I first started decomposing programs into stateful and stateless pieces. At first, through an OO point of view, it didn’t make much sense because state was everywhere. Then after doing functional programming in a functional language it became much more natural and valuable to make this split. TLA+ feels like the functional language here in that you’re forced to think about what the thinking problem is and bringing the implementation problems in only gets in the way.
After writing all that, I realize that doesn’t make it any more concrete!
Three small things I’d add: 1. thomas0 was not previously a user of Lobsters; 2. I mailed him a handful of 2” Lobsters stickers to say thanks; 3. issue 509 is maybe the best overview as we broke this down into multiple PRs to review/deploy fewer moving parts at one time.
I feel the same as the respondents in the survey. Read receipts create a lot of pressure to reply as soon as you see something and not when you have time to properly reply. Part of the reason I love email. If someone sends me an email I can read it and then think about it for a while and come back and send them a proper rely with thought put in to it.
I think read receipts could be perfectly replaced with what facebook messenger has a thumbs up button on the bottom of the screen which says to the other side “I acknowledge your message and no response is needed”. This works well for a huge range of messages like “Can you pick up milk on the way home”. The sender needs to see you saw it but they don’t need to hear anything back. Other messages like “Can you advise me on the best way to go about x” need time to write a good reply and they often can’t be replied to on the spot. Your options are either to give a poor answer right now or seem rude by ignoring the sender. Or like what I think many people do, read everything from the lock screen to avoid sending read receipts.
If somebody produces more efficient hashing hardware/software, I will use it to generate more profit, not reduce electricity consumption.
This is true for any resource and any technology in our global economic system.
I wasn’t trying to reply with red herrings, but to expand the conversation. It’s really interesting that people attack cryptocurrencies for wasting electricity when there is a bigger elephant in the room nobody seems to want to talk about. Everyone knows who butters their bread. Keep in mind I’m not defending wasting electricity, but focusing on electricity is like, to use a computer analogy, focussing only on memory and creating garbage collection to deal with it, while ignoring other resources like sockets, pipes, etc. That’s why I like C++, because it solves the problem for ALL resources, not just one. We need a C++ for the real world ;-)
i still don’t see exactly where the cryptocurrencies are required for investment in decentralized technology.
You are absolutely right! It isn’t a requirement. I love this subject by the way, so let me explain why you are right.
we have many classic systems which are decentralized: internet (phone before that), electricity grid, water supply, roads, etc. why are cryptocurrencies required for “modern” decentralized systems
You are absolutely right here. In the past, our decentralized systems were developed and paid for by the public sector. The private sector, until now, failed to create decentralized systems. The reason we need cryptocurrencies for modern decentralized systems is that we don’t have the political capital to create and fund them in the public sector anymore.
If we had a functioning global democracy, we could probably create may systems that “i run it because i can, not because i can make money with it”.
That spirit died during the great privatization of computing in the mid 80s, and the privatization of the internet in the mid 90s.
Github has large businesses paying lots for their service. They dont need to blast you with adverts and subscription reminders. A news website has very few paying customers anymore so what else are they to do. You can give lectures about keeping ui clean and using no js all day but that doesn’t bring money in.
The real issue is how these clickbait NYT articles keep getting to the top of HN when they usually have little to no substance.
I also try to get a feel for the reactivity of the environment (eg do you use scrum, and if so how often do you bring in unplanned work into the sprint? To what degree are senior management involved in planning process?)
I think that’s an abuse of
Pool. The point of it is to avoid forking off a process for every task.This is probably not what you meant to imply, but nobody else said it, so just to be clear: Mental illness and racism aren’t correlated.
I’m an opponent of him in many ways. I overall agree with your assessment using the word “arbitrary decisions from god.” In the past, I would’ve even called him out since I was blunt in a brutally-honest way.
His death saddened many Lobsters seemingly more than “it’s sad someone else died.” Maybe there’s something about him that hits home for them. I decided I’d comment on just the good aspects of what he was doing from the perspective of an ex-devout-Christian and current agnostic that respects people at least acting on their principles even when it costs them. That’s all.
From what I have read, he was impossible to work with because he would be absolutely set on things without giving any explanation other than “this is the right way”. A lot of the decisions for temple OS were not better but just random decisions “from god”.
Containers are a lot lighter than virtual machines so if you are running a lot of VMs you could save money switching to containers.
Nice! What did the stickers look like?
RIP :(
re homogeneous OS. Exactly! I was thinking it should be first or early on reading it. Then, I thought maybe author just assumed everyone heard about it. I focused on LISP/Smalltalk. It definitely should’ve been mentioned, though, since it competed with the C family of languages for systems programming, was safe, fast compiles, and whole school ran on it at one point.
re just like LISP machine. No, see my article. There’s barely any comparison except the simplicity and fast iterations of the base language. Ok, let’s say you had an error in your app which was due to your OS. You could load it up in the IDE seeing the error plus the current state of the app. If it was OS, you could load its internals. Then, you could hot-fix the running system with changes propagated throughout the OS.
Far as I know, Oberon was miles away from ever doing that. It’s that kind of thing that made me do counterpoints on Wirth where simplicity, esp for compiler, shouldn’t be main focus. I’d rather have the complexity of implementing a LISP machine if it meant my job as a developer on average project was that much more productive. Likewise, complex compilers like LLVM make code super-fast. I’d like to have both fast-to-compile and fastest-when-running as options. Wirth only wanted former.
So, it was homogeneous, easy to program, and easy to compile. It wasn’t near the LISP experience, though. That’s the gap I want folks perfecting imperative languages to close. One of them anyway.
Many programmers push Worse is Better saying it’s profitable and/or inevitable. Terry Davis worked on what he believed was The Right Thing no matter what it cost. He’s dead. The Temple[OS] he gave his life for will live on. Maybe his work or dedication will inspire other people. Hopefully. :)
This makes me think of something that I didn’t get into here which is that in practice, erroneous behavior is often the result of several errors. So if I have a concurrency issue debugging that might also uncover a logic issue. They get fixed as part of the same bug but are different parts. The way I presented the separation here is a simplification of reality but I think there’s value in analyzing errors through this lens of thinking vs. implementation. As I was working through this blog post, it sort of reminded me of when I first started decomposing programs into stateful and stateless pieces. At first, through an OO point of view, it didn’t make much sense because state was everywhere. Then after doing functional programming in a functional language it became much more natural and valuable to make this split. TLA+ feels like the functional language here in that you’re forced to think about what the thinking problem is and bringing the implementation problems in only gets in the way.
After writing all that, I realize that doesn’t make it any more concrete!
Three small things I’d add: 1. thomas0 was not previously a user of Lobsters; 2. I mailed him a handful of 2” Lobsters stickers to say thanks; 3. issue 509 is maybe the best overview as we broke this down into multiple PRs to review/deploy fewer moving parts at one time.
I feel the same as the respondents in the survey. Read receipts create a lot of pressure to reply as soon as you see something and not when you have time to properly reply. Part of the reason I love email. If someone sends me an email I can read it and then think about it for a while and come back and send them a proper rely with thought put in to it.
I think read receipts could be perfectly replaced with what facebook messenger has a thumbs up button on the bottom of the screen which says to the other side “I acknowledge your message and no response is needed”. This works well for a huge range of messages like “Can you pick up milk on the way home”. The sender needs to see you saw it but they don’t need to hear anything back. Other messages like “Can you advise me on the best way to go about x” need time to write a good reply and they often can’t be replied to on the spot. Your options are either to give a poor answer right now or seem rude by ignoring the sender. Or like what I think many people do, read everything from the lock screen to avoid sending read receipts.
Suggest
persontag.Also, can we get a black lobster or something for a little while? :(
Very cool! I’ve thought crdt’s need more appreciation, and it’s great to see them used practically here.
His live streams will be missed.
This is true for any resource and any technology in our global economic system.
I wasn’t trying to reply with red herrings, but to expand the conversation. It’s really interesting that people attack cryptocurrencies for wasting electricity when there is a bigger elephant in the room nobody seems to want to talk about. Everyone knows who butters their bread. Keep in mind I’m not defending wasting electricity, but focusing on electricity is like, to use a computer analogy, focussing only on memory and creating garbage collection to deal with it, while ignoring other resources like sockets, pipes, etc. That’s why I like C++, because it solves the problem for ALL resources, not just one. We need a C++ for the real world ;-)
You are absolutely right! It isn’t a requirement. I love this subject by the way, so let me explain why you are right.
You are absolutely right here. In the past, our decentralized systems were developed and paid for by the public sector. The private sector, until now, failed to create decentralized systems. The reason we need cryptocurrencies for modern decentralized systems is that we don’t have the political capital to create and fund them in the public sector anymore.
If we had a functioning global democracy, we could probably create may systems that “i run it because i can, not because i can make money with it”.
That spirit died during the great privatization of computing in the mid 80s, and the privatization of the internet in the mid 90s.
Github has large businesses paying lots for their service. They dont need to blast you with adverts and subscription reminders. A news website has very few paying customers anymore so what else are they to do. You can give lectures about keeping ui clean and using no js all day but that doesn’t bring money in.
The real issue is how these clickbait NYT articles keep getting to the top of HN when they usually have little to no substance.
We did not create the system, we were born into it. To most, they see it as reality vs a system that’s designed.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170731114534.htm
Sorry if I’m wrong, but do I sense a bit of skepticism about the dangers we face ahead?
The Joel Test is a good starting point.
I also try to get a feel for the reactivity of the environment (eg do you use scrum, and if so how often do you bring in unplanned work into the sprint? To what degree are senior management involved in planning process?)