1. 28
  1. 9

    I can’t see a mention of Haskell’s ad library as prior art:


    1. 3

      I’m not sure why you would - it’s not really about the the concept of AD, which isn’t new and for which many languages have a library (e.g. the one you linked to in Haskell), but about building it into the language itself, e.g. getting the compiler to do the heavy-lifting required for reverse mode AD.

    2. 4

      Is this a common use of the word “manifesto”? Or am I right to think it should not be tolerated?

      1. 22

        Or am I right to think it should not be tolerated?

        You seem to have strong opinions on this topic. Perhaps you should release a document describing your reasoning and the rules you propose for future usage of the word. ;)

        1. 10

          “How to Write a Manifesto: A Manifesto”.

          1. 1

            If I did maybe I would

          2. 10

            I think this is something the Swift community does for large overarching proposals. There are several other manifestos in the docs: ABI Stability Manifesto, Generics Manifesto, Ownership Manifesto, String Manifesto.

            1. 8

              Gah that makes me cringe.

            2. 6

              Wikipedia sez:

              A manifesto is a published declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government.

              1. 3

                Yeah I don’t get it (nor the point of the software itself tbh), isn’t this just a language extension / library proposal?

                1. 3

                  Is this a discussion to have here, where we can do nothing about it, or as an issue in the repository, where:

                  1. The people arguably most familiar with the process of doing things in Swift will respond
                  2. The people arguable most likely to be able to initiate some change in Swift will (hopefully) listen
                  3. We don’t end up with 13 of the 14 comments in this thread being about the least interesting part of this submission; a single word in the title.
                  1. 1

                    My two cents, a 15th commentary ill at ease with this word:

                    Personally, and maybe for the other 13/14 who comments you talk about, the word Manifesto was entry point for reading the article.

                    The 3 Manifestos I know of in programming are:

                    • The Agile Manifesto
                    • The Software Crafsmanship Manifesto
                    • The Test Driven Development Manifesto (not sure it’s been published though, it was written in a SoCraTes UK conference)

                    The 4th Manifesto I know of, is the Manifesto of the Communist Party written by Marx and Engels in the years 1850’s I think. There are probably numerous other Manifesto I don’t know of.

                    Contrarily to your opinion about the “least interesting point”, I think that the philosophical content of those Manifesto is their “Raison d’Etre”, the reason why they are Manifestos and why they are refered as such. (Whether we agree or not on the content).

                    The fact there already exists a library in Haskell (as puffnfesh noticed) that does that kind of stuff, and that there is no mention about it in the Differentiable Manifesto is also to be noticed.

                    One of the other comments says that it’s a habit in the swift community to call important stuffs Manifesto… So…

                    1. 1

                      The question I raised was whether this is a nonstandard and misleading usage of the word from the standpoint of the wider software community, so I believe it is a discussion to have here.

                      If someone with a GitHub account feels there is a consensus that this usage of “manifesto” is wrong, and cares enough about the Swift community to raise the issue with them, they can certainly do that.

                      1. 2

                        That’s closer to what I think of as a manifesto, but this Swift proposal is not the same type of thing.

                      2. 2

                        Or am I right to think it should not be tolerated?

                        … as in you’d resist or otherwise fight against it? Are you a prescriptivist?

                        1. 2

                          Is it prescriptive to want people to use language which is not misleading?

                          1. 1

                            Were you mislead?

                            1. 1


                        2. 1

                          It makes me think of this, so to me it’s a weird use of the word as well.