1. 2

    Taking a break. It’s the weekend. Give yourself a moment away from the computer.

    1. 1

      Yup.

      Instead of hacking yesterday, I made lemonade and went swimming in a beautiful, quiet lake just to take nap on the grass afterwards - refreshing af.

    1. 7

      For fun, I’m getting Factor proper high-resolution support under Linux, if I can.

      At work, I’ll be trying to restore automated testing to our two lonely JavaScript libraries.

      1. 3

        I’m Benjamin, and I have maintained bitquabit as my (mostly) technical blog since about 2005 or so. It wanders into management a couple of times, cause that’s where my career took me, but it’s generally focused on coding.

        1. 13

          I think I understand where the author’s coming from, but I think some of his concerns are probably a bit misplaced. For example, unless you’ve stripped all the Google off your Android phone (which some people can do), Google can muck with whatever on your phone regardless of how you install Signal. In all other cases, I completely get why Moxie would rather insist you install Signal via a mechanism that ensures updates are efficiently and quickly delivered. While he’s got a point on centralized trust (though a note on that in a second), swapping out Google Play for F-Droid doesn’t help there; you’ve simply switched who you trust. And in all cases of installation, you’re trusting Signal at some point. (Or whatever other encryption software you opt to use, for that matter—even if its something built pretty directly on top of libsodium at the end of the day.)

          That all gets back to centralized trust. Unless the author is reading through all the code they’re compiling, they’re trusting some centralized sources—likely whoever built their Android variant and the people who run the F-Droid repositories, at a bare minimum. In that context, I think that trusting Google not to want to muck with Signal is probably honestly a safe bet for most users. Yes, Google could replace your copy of Signal with a nefarious version for their own purposes, but that’d be amazingly dumb: it’d be quickly detected and cause irreparable harm to trust in Google from both users and developers. Chances are honestly higher that you’ll be hacked by some random other app you put on your phone than that Google will opt to go after Signal on their end. Moxie’s point is that you’re better off trusting Signal and Google than some random APK you find on the Internet. And for the overwhelming majority of users, I think he’s entirely correct.

          When I think about something like Signal, I usually focus on, who am I attempting to protect myself from? Maybe a skilled user with GPG is more secure than Signal (although that’s arguable; we’ve had quite a few CVEs this year, such as this one), but normal users struggle to get such a setup meaningfully secure. And if you’re just trying to defend against casual snooping and overexcited law enforcement, you’re honestly really well protected out-of-the-box by what Signal does today—and, as Mickens has noted, you’re not going to successfully protect yourself from a motivated nation-state otherwise.

          1. 20

            and cause irreparable harm to trust in Google from both users and developers

            You have good points except this common refrain we should all stop saying. These big companies were caught pulling all kinds of stuff on their users. They usually keep their market share and riches. Google was no different. If this was detected, they’d issue an apologetic press release saying either it was a mistake in their complex, distribution system or that the feature was for police with a warrant with it used accordingly or mistakenly. The situation shifts from everyone ditch evil Google to more complicated one most users won’t take decisive action on. Many wouldn’t even want to think to hard into it or otherwise assume mass spying at government or Google level is going on. It’s something they tolerate.

            1. 11

              I think that trusting Google not to want to muck with Signal is probably honestly a safe bet for most users.

              The problem is that moxie could put things in the app if enough rubberhose (or money, or whatever) is applied. I don’t know why this point is frequently overlooked. These things are so complex that nobody could verify that the app in the store isn’t doing anything fishy. There are enough side-channels. Please stop trusting moxie, not because he has done something wrong, but because it is the right thing to do in this case.

              Another problem: signals servers could be compromised, leaking the communication metadata of everone. That could be fixed with federation, but many people seem to be against federation here, for spurious reasons. That federation & encryption work together is shown by matrix for example. I give that it is rough on the edges, but at least they try, and for now it looks promising.

              Finally (imho): good crypto is hard, as the math behind it has hard constraints. Sure, the user interfaces could be better in most cases, but some things can’t be changed without weakening the crypto.

              1. 2

                many people seem to be against federation here, for spurious reasons

                Federation seems like a fast path to ossification. It is much harder to change things without disrupting people if there are tons of random servers and clients out there.

                Also, remember how great federation worked out for xmpp/jabber when google embraced and then extinguished it? I sure do.

                1. 2

                  Federation seems like a fast path to ossification.

                  I have been thinking about this. There are certainly many protocols that are unchangeable at this point but I don’t think it has to be this way.

                  Web standards like HTML/CSS/JS and HTTP are still constantly improving despite having thousands of implementations and different programs using them.

                  From what I can see, the key to stopping ossification of a protocol is to have a single authority and source of truth for the protocol. They have to be dedicated to making changes to the protocol and they have to change often.

                  1. 2

                    I think your HTTP example is a good one. I would also add SSL/TLS to that, as another potential useful example to analyze. Both (at some point) had concepts of versioning built into them, which has allowed the implementation to change over time, and cut off the “long tail” non-adopters. You may be on to something with your “single authority” concept too, as both also had (for the most part) relatively centralized committees responsible for their specification.

                    I think html/css/js are /perhaps/ a bit of a different case, because they are more documentation formats, and less “living” communication protocols. The fat clients for these have tended to grow in complexity over time, accreting support for nearly all versions. There are also lots of “frozen” documents that people still may want to view, but which are not going to be updated (archival pages, etc). These have also had a bit more of a “de facto” specification, as companies with dominant browser positions have added their own features (iframe, XMLHttpRequest, etc) which were later taken up by others.

                  2. 1

                    Federation seems like a fast path to ossification. It is much harder to change things without disrupting people if there are tons of random servers and clients out there. Also, remember how great federation worked out for xmpp/jabber when google embraced and then extinguished it? I sure do.

                    It may seem so, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. It has happened with xmpp, but xmpp had other problems, too:

                    • Not good for mobile use (some years back when messenger apps went big, but mobile connections were bad)
                    • A “kind-of-XML”, which was hard to parse (I may be wrong here)
                    • Reinventing of the wheel, I’m not sure how many crypto standards there are for xmpp

                    Matrix does some things better:

                    • Reference server and clients for multiple platforms (electron/web, but at least there is a client for many platforms)
                    • Reference crypto library in C (so bindings are easier and no one tries to re-implement it)
                    • Relatively simple client protocol (less prone to implementation errors than the streams of xmpp, imho)

                    The google problem you described isn’t inherent to federation. It’s more of a people problem: Too many people being too lazy to setup their own instances, just using googles, forming essentially an centralized network again.

                2. 10

                  Maybe a skilled user with GPG is more secure than Signal

                  Only if that skilled user contacts solely with other skilled users. It’s common for people to plaintext reply quoting the whole encrypted message…

                  1. 3

                    And in all cases of installation, you’re trusting Signal at some point.

                    Read: F-Droid is for open-source software. No trust necessary. Though to be fair, even then the point on centralization still stands.

                    Yes, Google could replace your copy of Signal with a nefarious version for their own purposes, but that’d be amazingly dumb: it’d be quickly detected and cause irreparable harm to trust in Google from both users and developers.

                    What makes you certain it would be detected so quickly?

                    1. 5

                      “Read: F-Droid is for open-source software. No trust necessary”

                      That’s non-sense. FOSS can conceal backdoors if nobody is reviewing it. Often the case. Bug hunters also find piles of vulnerabilities in FOSS just like proprietary. People who vet stuff they use have limits on skill, tools, and time that might make them miss vulnerabilities. Therefore, you absolutely have to trust the people and/or their software even if it’s FOSS.

                      The field of high-assurance security was created partly to address being able to certify (trust) systems written by your worst enemy. They achieved many pieces of that goal but new problems still show up. Almost no FOSS is built that way. So, it sure as hell cant be trusted if you dont trust those making it. Same with proprietary.

                      1. 3

                        It’s not nonsense, it’s just not an assurance. Nothing is. Open source, decentralization, and federation are the best we can get. However, I sense you think we can do better, and I’m curious as to what ideas you might have.

                        1. 4

                          There’s definitely a better method. I wrote it up with roryokane being nice enough to make a better-formatted copy here. Spoiler: none of that shit matters unless the stuff is thoroughly reviewed and proof sent to you by skilled people you can trust. Even if you do that stuff, the core of its security and trustworthiness will still fall on who reviewed it, how, how much, and if they can prove it to you. It comes down to trusting a review process by people you have to trust.

                          In a separate document, I described some specifics that were in high-assurance security certifications. They’d be in a future review process since all of them caught or prevented errors, often different ones. Far as assurance techniques, I summarized decades worth of them here. They were empirically proven to work addressing all kinds of problems.

                      2. 2

                        even then the point on centralization still stands.

                        fdroid actually lets you add custom repo sources.

                        1. 1

                          The argument in favour of F-Droid was twofold, and covered the point about “centralisation.” The author suggested Signal run an F-Droid repo themselves.

                      1. 3

                        Huh. I’d been wondering why GNOME crashing tended to exit the whole session in beginning in Ubuntu 17.10(ish); now I know. Is this true for all Wayland-backed desktops?

                        1. 2

                          Is this true for all Wayland-backed desktops?

                          Of course not. It’s pretty common to run panels and whatever other bits of UI in separate processes. So e.g. if the panel crashes in Sway, the whole desktop won’t crash. I’m not sure about KDE, but probably kwin_wayland only does window management and not all the shell functionality? Also I don’t think it loads arbitrary user installed extensions that can do whatever with the shell…

                        1. 9

                          I’m not as involved as I used to be, but I’m still on the core team, so feel free to ask me questions if you’ve got any.

                          1. 3

                            Would you recommend Factor for production use given that it seems to be reaching a sort of plateau in support and community?

                            It’s a beautiful language, by the way. Thank you for your work.

                            1. 5

                              I have Factor running in production. Although I don’t really maintain the web app much - it just ticks along - Factor runs tinyvid.tv and has for the past few years. I originally wrote it to test HTML 5 video implementations in browsers back when I worked on the Firefox implementation of video.

                              1. 5

                                As always, it depends on what you’re doing—I’d definitely be nervous if you told me you were shoving Factor into an automobile, for example—but Factor the VM and Factor the language are both quite stable and reliable. On top of doublec’s comment, the main Factor website runs Factor (and its code is distributed as part of Factor itself for your perusal), and it’s been quite stable. (We do occasionally have to log in and kick either Factor or nginx, but it’s more common that the box needs to be rebooted for kernel updates.) I likewise ran most of my own stuff on Factor for a very long time, including some…maybe not mission-critical, but mission-important internal tooling at Fog Creek. And finally, we know others in the community who are building real-world things with Factor, including a backup/mirroring tool which I believe is being written for commercial sale.

                                The two main pain-points I tend to hit when using Factor in prod are that I need a vocabulary no one has written, or that I need to take an existing vocabulary in a new direction and have to fix/extend it myself. Examples are our previous lack of libsodium bindings (since added by another contributor) and our ORM lacking foreign key support (not a huge deal, just annoying). Both of these classes of issues are increasingly rare, but if you live in a world where everything’s just a dependency away, you’ll need to be ready for a bit of a change.

                                You can take a look at our current vocab list if you’re curious whether either of the above issues would impact anything in particular you have in mind.

                              2. 1

                                What would you say is Factor’s best application domain, the kind of problem it solves best? I met Slava many years ago when he was presenting early versions of Factor to a local Lisp UG, and am curious to see where the language fits now, both in theory and practice.

                                1. 4

                                  My non-breezy answer is “anything you enjoy using it for.” There are vocabularies for all kinds of things, ranging from 3D sound to web servers to building GUIs to command-line scripts to encryption libraries to dozens of other things. Most of those were written because people were trying to do something that needed a library, so they wrote one. I think the breadth of subjects covered speaks well to the flexibility of the language.

                                  That all said, there are two main areas where I think Factor really excels. The first is when I’m not really sure how to approach something. Factor’s interactive development environment is right up there with Smalltalk and the better Common Lisps, so it’s absolutely wonderful for exploring systems, poking around, and iterating on various approaches until you find one that actually seems to fit the problem domain. In that capacity, I frequently use it for reverse-engineering/working with binary data streams, exploring web APIs, playing with new data structures/exploring what high-level design seems likely to yield good real-world performance, and so on.

                                  The second area I think Factor excels is DSLs. Factor’s syntax is almost ridiculously flexible, to the point that we’ve chatted on and off about making the syntax extension points a bit more uniform. (I believe this branch is the current experimental dive in that direction.) But that flexibility means that you can trivially extend the language to handle whatever you need to. Two silly/extreme examples of that would be Smalltalk and our deprecated alternative Lisp syntax (both done as libraries!), but two real examples would be regular expressions, which are done as just a normal library, despite having full syntax support, or strongly typed Factor, which again is done at the library level, not the language level. I have some code lying around somewhere where I needed to draft up an elaborate state machine, and I quickly realized the best path forward was to write a little DSL so I could just describe the state machine directly. So that’s exactly what I did. Lisps can do that, but few other languages can.

                                2. 1

                                  Were native threads added in this release, or are there plans to? And did anything ever come to fruition with the tree shaker that Slava was working on way back when?

                                  Major props on the release. It’s really nice to see the language survive Slava disappearing into Google.

                                  1. 5

                                    The threads are still green threads, if that’s what you’re asking, but we’ve got a really solid IPC story (around mailboxes, pattern matching, Erlang-style message passing, etc.), so it’s not a big deal to fire up a VM per meaningful parallel task and kick objects back and forth when you genuinely need to.

                                    In terms of future directions, I don’t know we’ve got anything concrete. What I’d like to do is to make sure the VM is reentrant, allow launching multiple VMs in the same address space, and then make the IPC style more efficient. That’d make it a lot easier to keep multithreaded code safe while allowing real use of multiple cores. But that’s just an idea right now; we’ve not done anything concrete that direction, as far as I know.

                                    1. 1

                                      Really off-topic, but isn’t Slava at Apple?

                                      1. 1

                                        He is now. Works on Swift.

                                    2. 1

                                      Where does the core factor team typically communicate these days? #concatenative on freenode seems kinda dead these days. Is there a mailing list, or on the yahoo group?

                                    1. 10

                                      This is just the most amazingly Sisyphean project I’ve ever encountered. They’re never, ever going to hit their goal; and yet, they keep cranking away.

                                      1. 4

                                        I felt that way about Haiku, and it’s actually turning into a fairly pleasant little desktop that can run some significant applications. It’s almost to the point that if I didn’t need to run VMs and videoconference in Google Hangouts, it could be my full-time desktop.

                                        1. 1

                                          The three things that kept me from going Haiku as a real desktop the last time I looked were a lack of drivers, general instability, and a lack of a good modern web browser. Have any of those been addressed? I don’t honestly need VMs or video conferencing, but being on a super old version of Firefox or WebKit were definite blockers.

                                          1. 1

                                            It seems pretty stable. Driver-wise, it handles everything on my reasonably recent laptop; it can load FreeBSD wifi drivers. WebPositive has I think been updated to WebKit 2.

                                            Really, I wish Haiku had simply targeted source code compatibility and not binary compatibility with BeOS. Binary compatibility shackled them to a custom version of GCC and binutils, which took a lot of engineering resources. They also added a lot of features, some of which are better than any other extant desktop OS (e.g. PackageFS), but which again took resources away from basic stability.

                                            At the end of the day, they’ve accomplished amazing stuff and Haiku is really a usable and pleasant environment. I just think they would’ve hit usability ten years ago if they’d made a few decisions differently.

                                            (This is not to disparage their work, which is really awesome. I was never in their shoes, so I’m armchair quarterbacking.)

                                            1. 2

                                              To the extent you’re armchair quarterbacking, I’ve said the same thing. Sounds like it might be worth me taking another gander, though, so I’ll check things out this evening. Thanks for the inspiration!

                                        2. 3

                                          There has been a lot of work recently on this. I dunno man, what if in three years we have a version of ReactOS that runs Vulkn drivers and can play AAA title games?

                                          1. 2

                                            I’ll happily eat my words! But i think it’s unlikely, as they are aiming at a target 15 years old!

                                        1. 23

                                          Kinda late on UNIX bashing bandwagon :)

                                          Also, Windows owes more of it’s legacy to VMS.

                                          1. 10

                                            It does, but users don’t use any of the VMSy goodness in Windows: To them it’s just another shitty UNIX clone, with everything being a file or a program (which is also a file). I think that’s the point.

                                            Programmers rarely even use the VMSy goodness, especially if they also want their stuff to work on Mac. They treat Windows as a kind of retarded UNIX cousin (which is a shame because the API is better; IOCP et al)

                                            Sysadmins often struggle with Windows because of all the things underneath that aren’t files.

                                            Message/Object operating systems are interesting, but for the most part (OS/2, BeOS, QNX) they, for the most part, degraded into this “everything is a file” nonsense…

                                            Until they got rid of the shared filesystem: iOS finally required messaging for applications to communicate on their own, and while it’s been rocky, it’s starting to paint a picture to the next generation who will finally make an operating system without files.

                                            1. 10

                                              If we talk user experiences, it’s more a CP/M clone than anything. Generations later, Windows still smells COMMAND.COM.

                                              1. 6

                                                yes, the bowels are VMS, the visible stuff going out is CP/M

                                                1. 4

                                                  Bowels is a good metaphor. There’s good stuff in Windows, but you’ve got to put on a shoulder length glove and grab a vat of crisco before you can find any of it.

                                              2. 10

                                                I think you’re being a little bit harsh. End-users definitely don’t grok the VMSy goodness; I agree. And maybe the majority of developers don’t, either (though I doubt the majority of Linux devs grok journald v. syslogs, really understand how to use /proc, grok Linux namespaces, etc.). But I’ve worked with enough Windows shops to promise you that a reasonable number of Windows developers do get the difference.

                                                That said, I have a half-finished book from a couple years ago, tentatively called Windows Is Not Linux, which dove into a lot of the, “okay, I know you want to do $x because that’s how you did it on Linux, and doing $x on Windows stinks, so you think Windows stinks, but let me walk you through $y and explain to you why it’s at least as good as the Linux way even though it’s different,” specifically because I got fed up with devs saying Windows was awful when they didn’t get how to use it. Things in that bucket included not remoting in to do syswork (use WMI/WinRM), not doing raw text munging unless you actually have to (COM from VBScript/PowerShell are your friends), adapting to the UAC model v. the sudo model, etc. The Windows way can actually be very nice, but untraining habits is indeed hard.

                                                1. 6

                                                  I don’t disagree with any of that (except maybe that I’m being harsh), but if you parse what I’m saying as “Windows is awful” then it’s because my indelicate tone has been read into instead of my words.

                                                  The point of the article is that those differences are superficial, and mean so very little to the mental model of use and implementation as to make no difference: IOCP is just threads and epoll, and epoll is just IOCP and fifos. Yes, IOCP is better, but I desperately want to see something new in how I use an operating system.

                                                  I’ve been doing things roughly the same way for nearly four decades, despite the fact that I’ve done Microsoft/IBM for a decade, Linux since Slackware 1.1 (Unix since tapes of SCO), Common Lisp (of all things) for a decade, and OSX for nearly that long. They’re all the same, and that point is painfully clear to anyone who has actually used these things at a high level: I edit files, I copy files, I run programs. Huzzah.

                                                  But: It’s also obvious to me who has gone into the bowels of these systems as well: I wrote winback which was for a long time the only tools for doing online Windows backups of standalone exchange servers and domain controllers; I’m the author of (perhaps) the fastest Linux webserver; I wrote ml a Linux emulator for OSX; I worked on ECL adding principally CL exceptions to streams and the Slime implementation. And so on.

                                                  So: I understand what you mean when you say Windows is not Linux, but I also understand what the author means when he says they’re the same.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    That actually makes a ton of sense. Can I ask what would qualify as meaningfully different for you? Oberon, maybe? Or a version of Windows where WinRT was front-and-center from the kernel level upwards?

                                                    1. 2

                                                      I didn’t use the term “meaningfully different”, so I might be interpreting your question you too broadly.

                                                      When I used VMS, I never “made a backup” before I changed a file. That’s really quite powerful.

                                                      The Canon Cat had “pages” you would scroll through. Like other forth environments, if you named any of your blocks/documents it was so you could search [leap] for them, not because you had hierarchy.

                                                      I also think containers are very interesting. The encapsulation of the application seems to massively change the way we use them. Like the iOS example, they don’t seem to need “files” since the files live inside the container/app. This poses some risk for data portability. There are other problems.

                                                      I never used Oberon or WinRT enough to feel as comfortable commenting about them as I do about some of these other examples.

                                                  2. 2

                                                    If it’s any motivation I would love to read this book.

                                                    Do you know of any books or posts I could read in the meantime? I’m very open to the idea that Windows is nice if you know which tools and mental models to use, but kind of by definition I’m not sure what to Google to find them :)

                                                    1. 4

                                                      I’ve just been hesitant because I worked in management for two years after I started the book (meaning my information atrophied), and now I don’t work with Windows very much. So, unfortunately, I don’t immediately have a great suggestion for you. Yeah, you could read Windows Internals 6, which is what I did when I was working on the book, but that’s 2000+ pages, and most of it honestly isn’t relevant for a normal developer.

                                                      That said, if you’ve got specific questions, I’d love to hear them. Maybe there’s a tl;dr blog post hiding in them, where I could salvage some of my work without completing the entire book.

                                                    2. 1

                                                      I, for one, would pay for your “Windows is not Linux” book. I’ve been developing for Windows for about 15 years, but I’m sure there are still things I could learn from such a book.

                                                    3. 7

                                                      but users don’t use any of the VMSy goodness in Windows: To them it’s just another shitty UNIX clone, with everything being a file or a program (which is also a file). I think that’s the point.

                                                      Most users don’t know anything about UNIX and can’t use it. On the UI side, pre-NT Windows was a Mac knockoff mixed with MSDOS which was based on a DOS they got from a third party. Microsoft even developed software for Apple in that time. Microsoft’s own users had previously learned MSDOS menu and some commands. Then, they had a nifty UI like Apple’s running on MSDOS. Then, Microsoft worked with IBM to make a new OS/2 with its philosophy. Then, Microsoft acquired OpenVMS team, made new kernel, and a new GUI w/ wizard-based configuration of services vs command line, text, and pipes like in UNIX.

                                                      So, historically, internally, layperson-facing, and administration, Windows is a totally different thing than UNIX. Hence, the difficulty moving Windows users to UNIX when it’s a terminal OS with X Windows vs some Windows-style stuff like Gnome or KDE.

                                                      You’re also overstating the everything is a file by conflating OS’s that store programs or something in files vs those like UNIX or Plan 9 that use file metaphor for about everything. It’s a false equivalence: from what I remember, you don’t get your running processes in Windows by reading the filesystem since they don’t use that metaphor or API. It’s object based with API calls specific to different categories. Different philosophy.

                                                      1. 3

                                                        Bitsavers has some internal emails from DEC at the time of David Cutler’s departure.

                                                        I have linked to a few of them.

                                                        David Cutler’s team at DECwest was working on Mica (an operating system) for PRISM (a RISC CPU architecture). PRISM was canceled in June of 1988. Cutler resigned in August of 1988 and 8 other DECwest alumni followed him at Microsoft.

                                                    4. 5

                                                      I have my paper copy of The Unix Hater’s Handbook always close at hand (although I’m missing the barf bag, sad to say).

                                                      1. 5

                                                        I always wanted to ask the author of The Unix Hater’s Handbook if he’s using Mac OS X

                                                        8~)

                                                        1. 5

                                                          It was edited by Simson Garfinkel, who co-wrote Building Cocoa Applications: a step-by-step guide. Which was sort of a “port” of Nextstep Programming Step One: object-oriented applications

                                                          Or, in other words, “yes” :)

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Add me to the list curious about what they ended up using. The hoaxers behind UNIX admitted they’ve been coding in Pascal on Macs. Maybe it’s what the rest were using if not Common LISP on Macs.

                                                        2. 7

                                                          Beat me to it. Author is full of it right when saying Windows is built on UNIX. Microsoft stealing, cloning, and improving OpenVMS into Windows NT is described here. This makes the Linux zealots’ parodies about a VMS desktop funnier given one destroyed Linux in desktop market. So, we have VMS and UNIX family trees going in parallel with the UNIX tree having more branches.

                                                          1. 4

                                                            The author doesn’t say Windows is built on Unix.

                                                            1. 5

                                                              “we are forced to choose from: Windows, Apple, Other (which I shall refer to as “Linux” despite it technically being more specific). All of these are built around the same foundational concepts, those of Unix.”

                                                              Says it’s built on the foundational concepts of UNIX. It’s built on a combo of DOS, OS/2, OpenVMS, and Microsoft concepts they called the NT kernel. The only thing UNIX-like was the networking stack they got from Spider Systems. They’ve since rewritten their networking stack from what I heard.

                                                              1. 4

                                                                Says it’s built on the foundational concepts of UNIX.

                                                                I don’t see any reason to disagree with that.

                                                                The only thing UNIX-like …

                                                                I don’t think that’s a helpful definition of “unix-like”.

                                                                It’s got files. Everything is a file. Windows might even be a better UNIX than Linux (since UNC)

                                                                Cutler might not have liked UNIX very much, but Windows NT ended up UNIX anyway because none of that VMS-goodness (Versions, types, streams, clusters) ended up in the hands of Users.

                                                                1. 10

                                                                  It’s got files. Everything is a file.

                                                                  Windows is object-based. It does have files which are another object. The files come from MULTICS which UNIX also copied in some ways. Even the name was a play on it: UNICS. I think Titan invented the access permissions. The internal model with its subsystems were more like microkernel designs running OS emulators as processes. They did their own thing for most of the rest with the Win32 API and registry. Again, not quite how a UNIX programming guide teaches you to do things. They got clustering later, too, with them and Oracle using the distributed, lock approach from OpenVMS.

                                                                  Windows and UNIX are very different in approach to architecture. They’re different in how developer is expected to build individual apps and compose them. It wasn’t even developed on UNIX: they used OS/2 workstations for that. There’s no reason to say Windows is ground in the UNIX philosophy. It’s a lie.

                                                                  “Windows NT ended up UNIX anyway because none of that VMS-goodness (Versions, types, streams, clusters) ended up in the hands of Users.”

                                                                  I don’t know what you’re saying here. Neither VMS nor Windows teams intended to do anything for UNIX users. They took their own path except for networking for obvious reasons. UNIX users actively resisted Microsoft tech, too. Especially BSD and Linux users that often hated them. They’d reflexively do the opposite of Microsoft except when making knockoffs of their key products like Office to get desktop users.

                                                                  1. 3

                                                                    Windows is object-based.

                                                                    Consider what methods of that “object” a program like Microsoft Word must be calling besides “ReadFile” and “WriteFile”.

                                                                    That the kernel supports more methods is completely pointless. Users don’t interact with it. Programmers avoid it. Sysadmins don’t understand it and get it wrong.

                                                                    I don’t know what you’re saying here.

                                                                    That is clear, and yet you’re insisting I’m wrong.

                                                                    1. 3

                                                                      Except, that’s completely wrong.

                                                                      I just started Word and dumped a summary of its open handles by object type:

                                                                      C:\WINDOWS\system32>handle -s -p WinWord.exe
                                                                      
                                                                      Nthandle v4.11 - Handle viewer
                                                                      Copyright (C) 1997-2017 Mark Russinovich
                                                                      Sysinternals - www.sysinternals.com
                                                                      
                                                                      Handle type summary:
                                                                        ALPC Port       : 33
                                                                        Desktop         : 1
                                                                        Directory       : 3
                                                                        DxgkSharedResource: 2
                                                                        DxgkSharedSyncObject: 1
                                                                        EtwRegistration : 324
                                                                        Event           : 431
                                                                        File            : 75
                                                                        IoCompletion    : 66
                                                                        IoCompletionReserve: 1
                                                                        IRTimer         : 8
                                                                        Key             : 171
                                                                        KeyedEvent      : 24
                                                                        Mutant          : 32
                                                                        Process         : 2
                                                                        Section         : 67
                                                                        Semaphore       : 108
                                                                        Thread          : 138
                                                                        Timer           : 7
                                                                        Token           : 3
                                                                        TpWorkerFactory : 4
                                                                        WaitCompletionPacket: 36
                                                                        WindowStation   : 2
                                                                      Total handles: 1539
                                                                      

                                                                      Each of these types is a distinct kernel object with its own characteristics and semantics. And yes, you do create and interact with them from user-space. Some of those will be abstracted by lower-level APIs, but many are directly created and managed by the application. You’ll note the number of open “files” is a very small minority of the total number of open handles.

                                                                      Simple examples of non-file object types commonly manipulated from user-land include Mutants (CreateMutex) and Semaphores (CreateSemaphore). Perhaps the most prominent example is manipulating the Windows Registry; this entails opening “Key” objects, which per above are entirely distinct from regular files. See the MSDN Registry Functions reference.

                                                                      1. 0

                                                                        None of these objects can exist on a disk; they cannot persist beyond shutdown, and do not have any representation beyond their instantaneous in-memory instance. When someone wants an “EtwRegistration” they’re creating it again and again.

                                                                        Did you even read the article? Or are you trolling?

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          None of these objects can exist on a disk; they cannot persist beyond shutdown, and do not have any representation beyond their instantaneous in-memory instance. When someone wants an “EtwRegistration” they’re creating it again and again.

                                                                          Key objects do typically exist on disk. Albeit, the underlying datastore for the Registry is a series of files, but you never directly manipulate those files. In the same sense you may ask for C:\whatever.txt, you may ask for HKLM:\whatever. We need to somehow isolate the different persisted data streams, and that isolation mechanism is a file. That doesn’t mean you have to directly manipulate those files if the operating system provides higher-level abstractions. What exactly are you after?

                                                                          From the article:

                                                                          But in Unix land, this is a taboo. Binary files are opaque, say the Unix ideologues. They are hard to read and write. Instead, we use Text Files, for it is surely the path of true righteousness we have taken.

                                                                          The Windows Registry, which is a core part of the operating system, is completely counter to this. It’s a bunch of large binary files, precisely because Microsoft recognised storing all that configuration data in plain text files would be completely impractical. So you don’t open a text file and write to it, you open a Registry key, and store data in it using one of many predefined data types (REG_DWORD, etc…).

                                                                          Did you even read the article? Or are you trolling?

                                                                          It sounds like you’re not interested in a constructive and respectful dialogue. If you are, you should work on your approach.

                                                                          1. -3

                                                                            What exactly are you after?

                                                                            Just go read the article.

                                                                            It’s about whether basing our entire interactions with a computer on a specific reduction of verbs (read and write) is really exploring what the operating system can do for us.

                                                                            That is a very interesting subject to me.

                                                                            Some idiot took party to the idea that Windows basically “built on Unix” then back-pedalled it to be about whether it was based on the same “foundational” concepts, then chooses to narrowly and uniquely interpret “foundational” in a very different way than the article.

                                                                            Yes, windows has domains and registries and lots of directory services, but they all have the exact same “file” semantics.

                                                                            But now you’re responding to this strange interpretation of “foundational” because you didn’t read the article either. Or you’re a troll. I’m not sure which yet.

                                                                            Read the article. It’s not well written but it’s a very interesting idea.

                                                                            Each of these types is a distinct kernel object with its own characteristics and semantics

                                                                            Why do you bring this up in response to whether Windows is basically the same as Unix? Unix has lots of different kernel “types” all backed by “handles”. Some operations and semantics are shared by handles of different types, but some are distinct.

                                                                            I don’t understand why you think this is important at all.

                                                                            It sounds like you’re not interested in a constructive and respectful dialogue. If you are, you should work on your approach.

                                                                            Do you often jump into the middle of a conversation with “Except, that’s completely wrong?”

                                                                            Or are you only an asshole on the Internet?

                                                                            1. 4

                                                                              Or are you only an asshole on the Internet?

                                                                              I’m not in the habit of calling people “asshole” anywhere, Internet or otherwise. You’d honestly be more persuasive if you just made your points without the nasty attacks. I’ll leave it at that.

                                                                    2. 2

                                                                      networking for obvious reasons

                                                                      Them being what? Is the BSD socket API really the ultimate networking abstraction?

                                                                      1. 7

                                                                        The TCP/IP protocols were part of a UNIX. AT&T gave UNIX away for free. They spread together with early applications being built on UNIX. Anyone reusing the protocols or code will inherit some of what UNIX folks were doing. They were also the most mature networking stacks for that reason. It’s why re-using BSD stacks was popular among proprietary vendors. On top of the licensing.

                                                                        Edit: Tried to Google you a source talking about this. I found one that mentions it.

                                                          1. 8

                                                            I would be very interested to see how this compares with say Carp. I’m not knowledgeable in this space though so it might be universes apart.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              Despite having posted this myself, I’m interested in such a comparison, too. Though, I hadn’t heard of Carp until today. (That’s the right link, right? The author recommends RabbitVM instead.)

                                                              So, I’d like to see a comparison to PicoLisp.

                                                              1. 7
                                                                1. 5

                                                                  PicoLisp has a single data type internally, and as a result doesn’t do anything fancy in terms of garbage collection (there’s no real avenue for heap fragmentation). As such it’s just a mark-sweep collector.

                                                                  newlisp does do something more fancy, Automatic Memory Management in newLISP, which is similar in nature to what Interim does, and what Rust does as well, albeit in a completely different way.

                                                                  newLISP follows a one reference only (ORO) rule. Every memory object not referenced by a symbol is obsolete once newLISP reaches a higher evaluation level during expression evaluation. Objects in newLISP (excluding symbols and contexts) are passed by value copy to other user-defined functions. As a result, each newLISP object only requires one reference.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    newLISP memory management in practice felt like Tcl to me, and not in a good way. The details are different, but you end up doing similar kluges, where you pass a handle to data that must be manually GC’d if you need to pass large stuff around/mutate data. That’s radically different from what Rust does, both in broad strokes and in the details.

                                                                    [Edit: accidentally wrote PicoLisp the first time I drafted this comment.]

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Yes, Rust is undoubtedly better in practice, though far more complicated to learn, and implement (from a compiler standpoint). A couple of hacks here and there and you get “arena-like” allocation properties, and it’s easy to implement? Yeah, seems like a good trade off for small, embeddable languages, to me.

                                                                  2. 3

                                                                    Oops! There’s some naming conflict there. I’m the author of the Carp and Rabbit you mentioned, both of which are small learning projects. https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp is probably the Lisp you are looking for.

                                                                1. 10

                                                                  Quite a few of the things in this post are genuinely preferences (e.g. whether the type is before or after the argument, whether open classes are a good or a bad idea, whether data classes should…I guess not exist because they don’t work the way the author wants? I’m not clear what the point is), but some of them seem odd to me.

                                                                  First, in 2014/2015, when Kotlin was much less mature and well-supported than it is today, and when documentation was much scarcer, I oversaw a team convert several medium-sized Java applications to Kotlin. We did this at a company that had tried and failed to adopt Scala several times due to its complexity, and several people on my team had survived those attempts. But we were up and moving in Kotlin in a couple of weeks, and successfully converted everything within a couple of months—with quantitative improvements in crashes and performance (largely due to a pile of NPEs the compiler caught in the process and resource leaks plugged by Kotlin’s .use semantics). That would seem to explicitly challenge his claim that it’s as complicated as Scala, and that the interop with Java is a problem in practice.

                                                                  I also found their notes on companion/static objects odd. For example, “[o]ld good public static void main() is still the only way to launch a Java app,” which is true at the bytecode level, but in Kotlin, you’d normally just write top-level functions for that purpose. In fact, you can indeed do that for main itself: most Kotlin programs start with a simple top-level fun main(args: Array<String>). In fact, that’s literally the first block of code on the Kotlin home page. The reason for the companion objects is because statics in Java have piles of odd behaviors due to the fact that they are more global functions than genuine class methods, which is the exact reason companion objects exist in the first place: you can use them wherever an object would work, you can reasonably override methods, etc., and it’ll all work the same as it does for class instances. I.e., it’s simpler. Unless I’m misremembering, in our entire codebase, I’m not sure we had any statics, and we used the companion objects very rarely. Namespaced top-level functions and variables almost always took their place.

                                                                  Similarly, the note about the lack of a Maybe monad is weird. First, the particular example is nonstandard to the point it’s hard to use it as a discussion point; (number ?: "0").toInt + 1 or number?.let { it.toInt + 1 } ?: 0 are both shorter than either the existing Kotlin or Java versions, and easier to read as well. But Kotlin can also just use the Java monad, and if you want a real monad, people have written the Maybe monad in Kotlin. It might be nice if it were in Kotlin’s stdlib, but it’s not hard to get.

                                                                  There are a lot of reasons I can think of not to use Kotlin: you’re effectively tied to IntelliJ, compilation times are slower, Kotlin doesn’t really do SAMs, Kotlin makes it very difficult to figure out if you’re working with a primitive or not when you’re trying to write performance-sensitive code, etc. But most of the stuff in this article seems really does ring odd to me.

                                                                  1. 4

                                                                    This has a lot of overlap with ideas I’ve been working on independently (like small computing, composable GUIs, implicit over-the-network message passing on cluster computers, and stack based languages with visible state). Presumably Don & I have both been paying a lot of attention to Alan Kay :). Glad there are fellow-travelers around – for a long time it was easy to believe I was the only Xanadu/Smalltalk/ZUI guy around!

                                                                    1. 5

                                                                      I really like the “tentative guidelines for composable uis” post. Going to save and reflect on that a bit.

                                                                      I’ve been working on a live-codeable interactive environment inspired by Self/Smalltalk etc., but using a Lua prototype-inherited scopes system (where code is “eval’d” in reified environments that can inherit from each other). After some iteration on such things I’ve realized it helps to have a concrete use case (allows testing, motivation, and empathizable communication with other people), but at the same time the choice of good use cases is important: if I choose a “make boring CRUD apps” use case, it basically involves porting existing libs + concepts and limits experimentation – so I went with a ‘generative art tool’ use case. This seems to let folks that look at it challenge their current ways of thinking about “software development.” It can evolve from static to animated art, then simulations (thus allowing games) and eventually hoping for network collaboration etc. Here are some videos:

                                                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDGzEUJscYE (making an art sketch)

                                                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-mxbhHBFOw (making another sketch)

                                                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRMeOGc1JLQ (slightly older, using it on the phone, you can see the browsing / inheritance here)

                                                                      As you may have noticed, here too there is a concept of ‘sending messages’ to the scopes – all a message is is some code to eval at the scope, and that’s how you program objects to begin with anyways.

                                                                      Some of the ‘composable UI’ stuff I’ve explored here is that like the .__tostring(...) metatable function Lua datatypes can support, the ‘console’ window will call a .__toui(...) metatable function on values you try to print in it (if defined), so that objects can provide their own renderers, you can set custom renderers for slots that you add to scopes (going to explore this soon for color picker widgets), …

                                                                      I’m trying to use terminology like ‘perform’ etc. and more other art/human oriented words to move this tool away from “software engineering as a career choice” style orientation, as I think some of your blog posts also touch on. ‘Mindstorms’ by Seymour Papert along with some other readings are fun to explore here…

                                                                      1. 2

                                                                        This is fantastic!

                                                                        Some of my earlier experiments in the composable-UI vein used Lua, but I found that it was easy to run up against both coroutine problems (lack of preemption) & limitations in the maximum number of identifiers in the global namespace. Your work here looks a lot more advanced than mine ever got.

                                                                        (My current prototype is in Io, but I discovered that I would essentially need to rewrite Io to get a working system, because it stopped being maintained years ago & has problems with its speculative execution based thread planning.)

                                                                        1. 3

                                                                          Yeah def. understand the global identifiers thing – in my prototype above globals are by default written to the ‘current object’ and scopes can inherit, so it sort of works like process environments in UNIX. You can really bend Lua to your will a lot – I do it by setting the metatable of the environment that code is eval’d in.

                                                                          Thanks for the nice words. :) I really like your writings so will be digging in there more. Definitely feels like you’ve thought about this stuff a lot and there’s good overlap. Will update you as I make more progress on this. Let me know if / when you have any more sources for me to grok!

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            There’s a group of people interested in the subject of composable UIs, hypertext, and utopian attempts to fix what’s broken about computing as a whole, over on mastodon. Most of my discussion happens there, & a lot of what I write on Medium is a refined version of discussions I have there. You might find that stimulating – I don’t represent the views of the whole community, which overlaps with the generative art scene.

                                                                          2. 1

                                                                            (My current prototype is in Io, but I discovered that I would essentially need to rewrite Io to get a working system, because it stopped being maintained years ago & has problems with its speculative execution based thread planning.)

                                                                            I didn’t realize Io wasn’t maintained anymore! That makes me sad. By happenstance, I’d looked recently and found the repo itself to be quite active, but it does mostly look like keep-it-going maintenance, not heavy work. Ah well. I recall it having its own pretty cool UI toolkit back in the day, too.

                                                                            That said, would you mind explaining a bit about the speculative thread planning? I was just an undergrad last I used it, and I’d thought Io had a pretty normal cooperative threading system; this makes it sound like I really misunderstood something pretty cool, but I can’t find much (any?) info about this on the language site. (All I could find was the note, “The Scheduler object is responsible for resuming coroutines that are yielding. The current scheduling system uses a simple first-in-first-out policy with no priorities.”)

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              There’s some kind of complicated heuristic for determining whether or not coroutines have already exited, when determining whether or not to transfer control to them. I ran into false positives with regard to that behavior, which were not entirely reproducible. I asked about the behavior in the irc channel, & was told that this was a known bug with the scheduler system, and one of the reasons active development was halted – the author didn’t think he could get the behavior right in C, if I understand the history correctly.

                                                                              I started implementing a new version in Go (a language I don’t know, but one that has support for channels and real multithreading built-in). This should allow me to more easily make it support a smalltalk-style image-based format with a history & support for transactions & rolling back execution, too, so it’s a general win. (Plus, since I don’t need to keep full compatibility with Io, I can break that compatibility if it makes it easier to make my composable UI system – the important bits are message passing, multi-threading, a prototype-based object system, and a simple syntax with few keywords to memorize, all of which can be preserved.)

                                                                        2. 2

                                                                          Hell yes on composable components! Great articles, thanks!

                                                                          Here’s the money shot from an HN article I just posted about that:

                                                                          Valerie Landau interviewed by Martin Wasserman

                                                                          Q: Do you have any last minute comments or observations about him to finish up. Or a good anecdote?

                                                                          A: I think – I wanted to say one thing that Doug told me many years ago. And this is really for the software developers out there. Once, this was in the 90’s. And I said, Doug, Doug, I’m just started to get involved with software development, and we have this really cool tool we’re working on. Do you have any advice, about … for a young software developer. He looked at me and said:

                                                                          “Yes. Make sure that whatever you do is very modular. Make everything as module as possible. Because you know that some of your ideas are going to endure, and some are not. The problem is you don’t know which one will, and which one won’t. So you want to be able to separate the pieces so that those pieces can carry on and move forward.”

                                                                          https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17121629

                                                                        1. 10

                                                                          I have not read the entire paper. Just the first 5 pages and the conclusion.

                                                                          I’d like to point out that there are significantly different ways for creating computer programs and this analysis seem to implicitly assume that the “static way” is the only way.

                                                                          In the “static way”,

                                                                          1. the programmers write large chunks of code in an editor (sometimes with some tests written beforehand),
                                                                          2. the code is sent to a compiler which help point out errors,
                                                                          3. if it compiles, the programs runs and the programmer observes the output
                                                                          4. the programmers makes updates as needed. Eventually adding other large chunks of code.

                                                                          (There are of course many variantions on this. Please correct me for a more accurate description.)

                                                                          In the more “dynamic way” of programming, a programmer is not only created in small pieces but potential new lines are tried out in the interpreter before deciding to add them or not. It is typically characterized by a short feedback loop.

                                                                          1. the programmers write a statement or line,
                                                                          2. this is sent to the interpreter,
                                                                          3. the programmer observes the result,
                                                                          4. make modifications and go back to 1 and/or add/keep some that line for the final program.

                                                                          Usually, there are lot of (language and IDE) features to make the 1-3 loop as fast as possible.

                                                                          In the Samlltalk IDEs, its possible to even run programs with mostly missing methods and Classes and fill them in at runtime (without ever restarting). To make such workflows possible, “superfluous” dynamic features are absolutely needed but will never be seen in individual codebases in the final product.

                                                                          The main reason I think this article assumes a strong static view is that they never discuss this aspect of dynamic languages (in the pages I’ve read).

                                                                          We started our analysis by looking at all 1850 software projects stored in Squeaksource in a snapshot taken in early 2010.

                                                                          They don’t look at dynamic feature use during the program creation phase at all, just the final product.

                                                                          One issue is that its always possible to program in a more static way in a dynamic language and IDE. And the see the lack of help from the compiler as a hinderance. In one never uses the dynamic features then it is easy to conclude they are a hinderance. But these features aren’t there solely for the purpose of being included in the final program.

                                                                          They found that the Python program in their corpus made a heavier usage of dynamic features during their startup phase, but that many of them also used some of these features during their entire lifetime.

                                                                          Of course, to perform any kind of study, some kind of assumptions need to be made. But they don’t say that this aspect is ignored to simplify the study.

                                                                          There are also things that can be done which can improve a language on one of the static/dynamic axis without regression on the other, especially at the beginning.

                                                                          As a final note, I’d like to mention one last use of dynamic features: to learn about a new module. I’ll usually read the high level readme of a new module and then immediately start playing with its objects in the interpreter without reading the documentation for individual classes and functions.

                                                                          Reflexive methods allow me to quickly find out what’s available and try things purely based on their names. I’ll send mock inputs to functions to try and figure out what their inputs and outputs are, observe the results and update my hypothesis about what they do.

                                                                          I find this gives me a much better and certain understanding of foreign modules and its a lot of fun to just poke around instead of just reading!

                                                                          Now I’m wondering if I should make a screencast of this.

                                                                          1. 9

                                                                            I completely agree with your point here, and I had the same reaction to the paper. I don’t program in Smalltalk anymore, but when I did, one of my favorite demos was what I called “debugger-driven development.” I’d start by just writing some code that would be what I wanted an API to look like–e.g., for a fortune program, maybe Fortune loadAll randomFortune–then execute DoIt, bringing up the debugger (since that class doesn’t even exist)–and then I’d add recursively add the missing methods until the original line completed. This leverages a whole swath of metaobject and reflective capabilities that the final code wouldn’t need, but without which, the entire Smalltalk development experience would be neutered beyond recognition.

                                                                            My other common demo was pretty different, but also did a great job using metaprogramming and reflective capabilities during development not needed in prod: I’d find a web API that was pretty cleanly designed and relevant to the audience I was speaking to. Next, I’d show how to write a kind of generic catch-all implementation via #doesNotUnderstand:, like what you might do in Ruby or Python. But then I’d modify it to generate the missing methods on-the-fly, and then (using a deliberately-made mistake in my first implementation) show how things like method modification timestamps and reflection could find the improperly-generated methods and regenerate them. (Sometimes, I’d even demo regenerating them as-needed with #perform: if I felt like it.) Finally, when we were done, I’d delete the #doesNotUndestand: implementation, customize a route or two, and be done. The final product didn’t use reflection, metaclasses, #doesNotUnderstand, or any of that kind of stuff, but the entire development process did. And unsurprisingly, a lot of the code for development did use things like self basicNew, foo perform: (a, b) asSymbol, and so on, even though the final wouldn’t.

                                                                          1. 6

                                                                            The fact that Guix is written in Scheme is a big appeal for me as opposed to Nix’s custom language. I preferred Nix as a way to support a standard environment (it has more packages), but this new feature makes the distribution of fat binaries a lot simpler than the other solutions. Less is more!

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              FWIW, I tried to dissuade Gentoo from using Bash and Nix from creating their own language, both at basically around the 0.0.1 timeframe. I guess I am not terribly persuasive. Guix and Nix should merge. The separation is kinda ridiculous.

                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                Guix and Nix should merge.

                                                                                Seems like a great idea until you consider Guix’s commitment to freedom, and as a result blobless experience. Unless NixOS adopted that stance as well, the philosophical incompatibility would doom it. Nix adopting guile is more likely, I’d say, especially since guile did have a lua like front end that might make it a bit easier to slowly migrate everything…

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  It is similar to vegetarian and non-vegetarian, one can have a blobless, freedom filled diet and then occasionally should they choose, sprinkle some bin01bits on top.

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    I upvoted, but as a vegan, I kind of take offense to vegetarians (in a half hearted way, of course), who only “half” commit. But, I recognize that not everyone does it for the animals (even vegans).

                                                                                    But, why would you go out of your way to run a completely free system, only to sprinkle some blobbits on it? That completely invalidates the point! That blob, is where the nasty things that disrespect your freedoms are.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      you wouldn’t run it for the freeness, but supposedly guix has some other strengths as well

                                                                                  2. 1

                                                                                    I didn’t realize Guix forbade blobs (though I’m not surprised, given its origin). Is there a with-blob version of Guix? I didn’t see one, but that doesn’t necessarily mean no…

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      Obviously, you can acquire and install the blobs yourself, and I’m sure there are blog posts around in support of that. But, yeah, it’s like Trisquel, gNewsense, and the others that have similar governance for totally-libre.

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        I haven’t used it in a long time, but I thought that you could point Guix at the package store from Nix, similar to how you can point Debian at apt repos from other sources. You would have to be really careful with this; I remember early on getting burned because I asked Nix to install Firefox and it gave me Firefox-with-adobe-flash which was pretty gross.

                                                                                    2. 3

                                                                                      Ha! Well, there must be an alternate universe where you managed to convince them ;) I think they do borrow some ideas and even some code (I remember a FOSDEM talk from Ludovic last year mentioning that). Implementation wise, I would suspect Guix has the upper hand, but the restriction to GNU packages is problematic not you need specific packages.

                                                                                  1. 6

                                                                                    Sometimes I wonder why recent languages don’t support multiple [return] values. We are even using destructuring assignment as a poor man’s multiple values. It solves the problem described in the article w/o cluttering the functions code with conditionals

                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                      Most recent languages honestly do (Python, Elixir, Go, Rust, Kotlin, and Swift (I think) to name a few), and they’re getting backported in some others (C# 7 and C++17, for example) by improving tuples.

                                                                                      I think the bigger issue with most of these languages is they don’t have anything like ML/Rust/Erlang-style fail-if-the-return-looks-like-this mode that lets you effectively use them as if they were exceptions when you want—e.g., the frequent pattern in Erlang/Elixir of Foo, ok = some_fun(), or Rust’s let v = bar()?;. Without that, you either do what Ruby’s doing here (throw an exception if exception: true is passed), or you have to explicitly check yourself (where Go is the extreme example of if foo, err := bar(); err != nil { ... } being a constant refrain).

                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                        I don’t now about Elixir, Go or Kotlin, but neither Python or Go support multiple-values. In Go you have to accept to assign all the values the function returns, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of having multiple return values in the first place! (I checked in a REPL just to be sure). I haven’t kept up with recent developments in Python3 but AFAIK Pythonistas use lists or dictionaries to mimic multiple-values. Similarly in ES6 people use dictionaries + destructuring assignment in ES6. For Example

                                                                                        const foo = () => ({a: 1, b: 2})
                                                                                        
                                                                                        const {a} = foo()
                                                                                        
                                                                                        console.log(a)
                                                                                        

                                                                                        Prints 1. The ES6 approach is better than Golangs and Python solution but it still forces the caller to reuse the name the callee decided on[0] plus all the return values are allocated on the stack.

                                                                                        AFAICT Rust again doesn’t support multiple value but uses pattern matching (which destructuring assignment is one example of) to mimic them.

                                                                                        Multiple values are useful for more than exception handling btw, one example is the division operator

                                                                                        [0]: Yeah I know one can rebind the name, but the syntax is cumbersome to use and one still have to remember the name of the value as opposed to its purpose, which is easier to remember).

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          Well, now I’m confused. On the one hand, you say,

                                                                                          …neither Python [n]or Go support multiple-values

                                                                                          …and then immediately link to a REPL that starts with “Go supports multiple return values,” and even shows an example of ignoring some of the returned values. Likewise, while I agree with you that Python uses sequences for multiple returns behind-the-scenes, the use in practice looks like

                                                                                          def foo(a, b): return b, a
                                                                                          c, d = foo(1, 2)
                                                                                          

                                                                                          which is indistinguishable in practice from what I do in an ML. (And in Python 3.5 and later, you can even do things like a, b, *rest = foo().) Python even has multiple-return division operations (see math.fmod from as far back as Python 2.7).

                                                                                          Could you give an example of a language that does what you want, and how it differs from the previous? I feel as if we’re using the same words, but for radically different things.

                                                                                          1. 2

                                                                                            I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear in my previous reply.

                                                                                            Could you give an example of a language that does what you want, and how it differs from the previous?

                                                                                            Common Lisp.

                                                                                            and how it differs from the previous?

                                                                                            • The caller doesn’t have to be aware that the callee supports multiple values unless they want to use it.
                                                                                            • The compiler can determine at the call site how many values are going to be used and allocate appropriately.

                                                                                            which is indistinguishable in practice from what I do in an ML.

                                                                                            Yes, and to the best of my knowledge MLs don’t support multiple values. Pattern matching enables one to mimic multiple values, which is what most recent language are doing and it provides at least 90% of the value of having multiple values.

                                                                                            The Go REPL example shows that the caller must be aware of the amount of values the callee is returning, which leads to clumsy UX. I’m guessing you wanted to link to modf but I’m not sure what you were getting at. The CL example of / shows how we can re use the same function instead of having mod and div. Similarly be taken advantage retrieving the value in a map where nil indicates absence without affecting the UX of the ‘happy path’ (ie. nil is not possible a value in the map).

                                                                                            –––––––

                                                                                            It is kinda ironic that my comment was motivated out of the idea of less is more in language design, in light of all the feature creep I’m seeing recently in JS and Ruby, but it appears that the approach of recent languages is better example of less is more ¯_(ツ)_/¯

                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                              to the best of my knowledge MLs don’t support multiple values

                                                                                              Returning multiple values (like in Go) is just a special case of tuples, which most MLs support. So you don’t need an extra language feature for this. But I wouldn’t use this for errors like Go does - it makes more sense to use a variant/sum type for this.

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      The Laundry Files appears to be leaking.

                                                                                      1. 26

                                                                                        The circular shape of the letters hints at the eyes of the Go gopher

                                                                                        They’re really stretching with that line. Two circles could be a lot of things and the first things that come to mind don’t have anything to do with the Go gopher. I don’t like this. It’s generic corporate, and I’ll miss the ode to Plan 9.

                                                                                        1. 29

                                                                                          they needed an excuse to update the website and make it not work without javascript.

                                                                                          1. 16

                                                                                            i kind of respect the cynicism that went into this reply

                                                                                            1. 2

                                                                                              But, they didn’t update the website. The branding is entirely absent from the website. It’s boggling.

                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                oh, they will

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  Over two weeks later and still no redesign of the website.

                                                                                            2. 15

                                                                                              It’s generic corporate

                                                                                              but… Go doesnt have generics! \s

                                                                                              Maybe it just supports the corporate interface.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                It’s generic corporate

                                                                                                Actually, it makes sense.

                                                                                                I’ll miss the ode to Plan 9

                                                                                                IMHO, Plan 9 had the technical potential to disrupt the centralized web. Years before it became a problem.
                                                                                                Now it’s a niche OS, developed by weird hackers that don’t buy mainstream buzzwords.

                                                                                                So, from certain points of view, Plan 9 is dangerous.
                                                                                                Something that any good programming minion should forget…

                                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                                  Wait, does the COC rotate every time you click it? If so, are they being serious? The COCs generally looked really laudable, but now I can’t tell if they’re just posting them ironically.

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    Wait, does the COC rotate every time you click it?

                                                                                                    Yes.

                                                                                                    If so, are they being serious?

                                                                                                    Yes.

                                                                                                    The COCs generally looked really laudable, but now I can’t tell if they’re just posting them ironically.

                                                                                                    As my doctor say, irony is the worst side effect of intelligence.
                                                                                                    A pretty serious side effect, that most people cannot tollerate.

                                                                                                    (but since my doctor is my wife, she could be ironic about that… :-D)

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                If you just want this kind of thing for dev tooling, the asdf extensible version manager (which has nothing to do with Common Lisp’s asdf-install) is probably a bit closer to solving your needs than a snap.

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  Despite all Node.js-related content in this article, is anybody here using Snap or Flatpak already?

                                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                                    I used FlatPak to install one or two Desktop apps but I wasn’t impressed. That could be the packagers’ fault or the system’s.

                                                                                                    All real problems aside t’s also a bit annoying as you seem to have to run the applications with a long command line that I kept forgetting, maybe just providing a directory with shims/wrapper scripts with predictable names would’ve gone a long way (I mean, /usr/local/bin might be debatably ok as well)

                                                                                                    My solution for non-GUI-heavy things so dar has been nixpkgs - so I can for example run a brand new git or tmux on Ubuntu 16.04.

                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                      You might also be interested in checking out Exodus for quickly getting access to newer versions of tools like that. It automatically packages local versions of binaries with their dependencies, so it’s great for relocating tools onto a server or into a container. You can just run

                                                                                                      exodus git tmux | ssh my-ubuntu-server.com
                                                                                                      

                                                                                                      and those tools are made available in ~/.exodus/bin. There’s no need for installing anything special on the server first, like there is with Snap, Flatpak, and Nix.

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        Thanks, I’ve heard about exodus but I think it’s a bit of a hack (a nice one though) and first I’d need to have those new versions installed somewhere, which I usually don’t :)

                                                                                                        I’m actually a big fan of package managers and community effort - just sometimes I’m on the wrong OS and would have certain tools in a “very fresh” state - so far nixpkgs is perfect for me for this.

                                                                                                    2. 2

                                                                                                      I use snap for a few things, and have even made a classic snap or two of some silly personal stuff. They seem to work fine, but ultimately feel out of place due to things like not following XDG config paths. They also get me very little over an apt repo, or even an old-school .deb, since most of the issues (e.g. you must be root) remain. Generally speaking, given that Linux distros already have package managers, I’m more interested in things like AppImage, which bring genuine non-package but trivial to install binaries to Linux.

                                                                                                      (What I really want is to live in a universe where 0install took off, but I think that universe is gone,)

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        Yes, quite a few popular projects: Spotify, Skype, Firefox, Slack, VLC, Heroku, etc.

                                                                                                      1. 10

                                                                                                        Pattern matching is one of the only features I regularly feel is lacking in Ruby.
                                                                                                        There are other things I dislike or wish weren’t present, but the only missing feature is this.
                                                                                                        Combining conditionals and assignment just feels 10x better than having them separate.

                                                                                                        I even built a pattern matching library with some gross fun hacks on top of a specific namespace, thread-local singleton instance variables and caller_locations to allow for kinda-mostly pattern matching. I’m going to see if I can dig up the code, because aside from a first/rest pairing, I managed to get nested matching across Arrays and Hashes, and an Any object to match anything.
                                                                                                        Then I bumped into a Ruby Tapas video on the topic and stole the hubcaps to implement Erlang-like guard clauses.

                                                                                                        1. 6

                                                                                                          Have you looked at Qo at all? If so, any strong opinions about where it’s lacking? (Admittedly, it’s a giant hack, but it’s a pretty good giant hack.)

                                                                                                          1. 12

                                                                                                            Hello! Author of Qo here. Yeah, you’re right, it is a bit of a giant hack XD

                                                                                                            Anyways, I’d love to hear any ideas or suggestions on it. Typically I use the issue tracker to keep tabs on what I want to do with it, so feel free to jump in there as well.

                                                                                                            Admittedly I’m also the one who wrote a small-scale novel on pattern matching in the description to try and cover bases as I really really really want this feature, as evidenced by writing Qo in the first place.

                                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                                              What do you think about the %p() or %m() syntaxes? I think they’re really ugly personally. Is it possible to make a spin on case which parses the when clauses as patterns without any special extra delimiters? You somewhat hit on that when talking about Scala style I think. Something like this maybe?

                                                                                                              match val 
                                                                                                              when [:constant, "constant", [1], variable_binding]
                                                                                                                variable_binding + 1
                                                                                                              else
                                                                                                                0
                                                                                                              end
                                                                                                              

                                                                                                              If you already covered that, apologies, I read your comments quickly last night and might have missed it.

                                                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                                                EDIT Codefied my idea here - https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14709#note-6

                                                                                                                match(value) do |m|
                                                                                                                  m.when(/name/, 42) { |name, age| Person.new(name, age) }
                                                                                                                  m.else { |object| raise "Can't convert!" }
                                                                                                                end
                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                An example practical usage:

                                                                                                                def get_url(url)
                                                                                                                  Net::HTTP.get_response(URI(url)).then(&match do |m|
                                                                                                                    m.when(Net::HTTPSuccess) { |response| response.body.size }
                                                                                                                    m.else { |response| raise response.message }
                                                                                                                  ))
                                                                                                                end
                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                Original:

                                                                                                                Not a problem, there are a lot of them (may Matz and Koichi forgive me)

                                                                                                                I hadn’t quite covered it yet. That’s always been the trick about this: what should it look like?

                                                                                                                Truthfully I don’t know quite yet, but I’m working on ideas. In regards to the %p and %m I would agree with some Reddit comments that they can tend slightly Perl-ish. I’d like a more fluent syntax if possible that reads intuitively, and I don’t think that quite does it.

                                                                                                                I had initially proposed this:

                                                                                                                new_value = match value
                                                                                                                  when %m(:_, 20..99) { |_, age| age + 1 }
                                                                                                                  else { |object| ... }
                                                                                                                end
                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                …which is quite similar to your suggestion. I’d almost consider switching the syntax a bit to something more like this:

                                                                                                                new_value = match value
                                                                                                                  when matches(:_, 20..99) { |_, age| age + 1 }
                                                                                                                  else matches(:_) { |object| ... }
                                                                                                                end
                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                When possible I would prefer very clear words as syntax over the percent shorthands. With this you could almost amend case to look for matches

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  Ahhh, I hadn’t seen how binding the match results as block arguments would be valuable, but your example of using === overloads like Class.=== and Regexp.=== have convinced me. I learned pattern matching in Erlang so I was thinking about the Erlang style mostly, and I didn’t think of how pattern matching would be most useful in Ruby. Blocks are a good way to reuse the case style matching that’s already well understood.

                                                                                                                2. 1

                                                                                                                  OOH I like this! You should counter-propose this syntax.

                                                                                                              2. 2

                                                                                                                I only just saw it via this proposal. Hope to find time to play with it today after work.

                                                                                                            1. 7

                                                                                                              One of the most popular libraries for doing such things is gobject. Compared with C++ it also offers much better interop with other languages. For example, gobject-based GTK has decent bindings for lots of languages, but C++-based Qt has only for few (for other languages bindings are incomplete, outdated or QML-only). Also there is Vala for this system, which is more like object syntax preprocessor for C than separate language (AFAIK, Objective C used similar approach in earlier versions).

                                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                                Indeed. I have extremely ambivalent feelings about GObject, but it’s largely COM done a bit more sanely. The plethora of language bindings testifies to that. My main complaint is that they didn’t literally just build off GNU’s already existing ObjC runtime.