Live data from Hacker News

Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

news.ycombinator.com

921–930 of 931 posts

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are "the good goals of the past" good enough goals for today and tomorrow?

I would hope not. But, based on your work and other comments here, I think we'd agree that our collective sights have been set lower for no good reason. If the goals of the past cannot be fully realized, what hope can we have for those of today and tomorrow? Concretely, I follow existing languages like Agda, Lean, Haskell, and Rust for pushing the envelope on language semantics, compiler ingenuity, and library abstra…

I tried to skim-read through the Unison About page, but all I saw was an under-designed variation of Jetbrains MPS for a single language. I assume you have spent longer with the project - do you care to summarize the differences?

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your selection of data is arbitrary. Not only is your perception based on an interpreter, but how can you be sure that you were even given all of the relevant bits? Or, even what the bits really meant/are?

Of course the selection of data is arbitrary -- but Rich gives us a definition, which he makes abundantly clear and uses consistently. All definitions can be considered arbitrary. He's not making any claim that we have all the relevant bits of data or that we can be sure what the data really means or represents. But we can expound on this problem in general. In any experiment where we gather data, how can we be sure…

I hope we can do our best, I'm just not sure there is really a satisfactory way to define/measure/judge that we have actually done so....

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#923

Hi Alan! I've got some assumptions regarding the upcoming big paradigm shift (and I believe it will happen sooner than later): 1. focus on data processing rather than imperative way of thinking (esp. functional programming) 2. abstraction over parallelism and distributed systems 3. interactive collaboration between developers 4. development accessible to a much broader audience, especially to domain experts, without…

What if "data" is a really bad idea?

Data is semantically defined by the processes using/interpreting it. Not by the data itself. So Rich Hickey is right and Alan Kay is wrong.

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that disturbs me about this argument is that IMHO it's a slippery slope towards "back in my day, we didn't have this new-fangled stuff". > I just think we all need to be mindful about where our concerns might be coming from. Basically we're on the same page. Here is proposition. I'll steelman the Conservative view and you tell me what you think. I promise not to claim vidya causes violence or D&D is a lea…

Thank you, this was a wonderfully thought-provoking response (also, the first season of Connections is probably my favourite documentary of all time!). One thing I will offer is that in my household growing up, television was positive because it was an experience that we shared as a family. We would watch TV shows together, talk about them together, laugh at them together, etc. In that sense, television brought outsi…

> Thank you, this was a wonderfully thought-provoking response (also, the first season of Connections is probably my favourite documentary of all time!).

Thank you. I hope to meet or communicate with Mr Burke at some point soon, I know Dan Carlin had a podcast with him a little while back if you're interested in his new take on the world. Connections remains the high water mark for documentary making and it is worth reading the books. If you want to watch a documentary in a similar style I suggest The Ascent of Man.

> In a sense, I think that although television itself isn't interactive, you could say that our family was 'interactive about' television. So we got the benefits of being able to use television in a positive way.

I believe you, I am mainly thinking of the average 5 hours per day the average American (or European) spends in front of the television. The dose makes the poison!

> This really resonated with me at the time, given that I was really getting into the Space Quest & other 'Quest games

Yes, it is clear that videogaming can provide for a shared community and culture, most obviously the MMORPGS. This is not something television achieves, or if it does, it is rare, like fans of Mythbusters or Connections. In the present we are concerned with developing the foundations of the Net, like commerce or the law. But ultimately I think a Net culture will be the most valued feature we ascribe to the Net.

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#925

Did you guys ever talk about Man-Computer Symbiosis in terms of the computer unfairly benefiting some men over other men? One example could be, give me money and I'll give you a computer that can translate English to Spanish. Another example could be, Apple share holders profit from iphone sales, and the iphone UI leads naive/normal people to think texting while driving is ok.

Books have the same problem, and both are fixable (lots easier than the big ones we should be tending to)

[deleted]

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Alread read several hundred of them. Looks like I gotta come back for anotger 200 or so. Just so many interesting subthreads here with who knows what impact waiting to happen. Thanks to you and HN for arranging it.

The same here. I reread it already two times. Made a ton of notes.

Want to share the notes?

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#928

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be turtles all the way down, so maybe set theory?

A good question isn't it? For parallel ideas and situation, take a look at Lincos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_(artificial_language)

Wow. Thanks.

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to Claude Shannon! It's not about the message but about the receiver ...

Actually it is as much about the sender and the message as the receiver.

Sure, the message matters insomuch as it contains any information the receiver might be able to receive, but that doesn't guarantee it will be received, so how much does a message really matter? I don't see how the sender matters that much (unless perhaps the sender and receiver are linked, for example, they exchange some kind of abstract interpreter for the message). But does the message matter on its own if is is encrypted so well that it is indistinguishable from noise to any but one particular receiver? It's just noise without the receiver. I'm not sure what was meant, but this is the best I can do in understanding it.

Re: Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

#930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get (a) and (b) completely. On (c), I felt this way about NCSA Mosaic in 1993 when I first saw it and I'm relieved to hear you say this because although I definitely misunderstood a major technology shift for a few years, maybe I wasn't wrong in my initial reaction that it was stupid.

I didn't begin to get it until the industry started trying to use browsers for applications in the late '90s/early 2000's. I took one look at the "stateful" architecture they were trying to use, and I said to myself, "This is a hack." I learned shortly thereafter about criticism of it saying the same thing, "This is an attempt to impose statefulness on an inherently stateless architecture." I kept wondering why the i…

I don't think networked X11 is quite the web we'd want (it's really outdated), but it does seem better than browsers, which as you point out are so bad you want to stab your eyes out. Unfortunately, now that the web has scaled up to this enormous size, people can't un-see it and it does seem like it's seriously polluted our thinking about how the Internet should interact with end users.

Maybe the trick is something close to this: we need an Internet where it's very easy to do not only WYSIWYG document composition and publishing (which is what the web originally was, minus the WYSIWYG), but really deliver any kind of user experience we want (like VR, for example). It should be based on a network OS (an abstract, extensible microkernel on steroids) where user experiences of the network are actually programs with their own microkernel systems (sort of like an updated take on postscript). The network OS can security check the interpreters and quota and deal out resources and the microkernels that deliver user experiences like documents can be updated as what we want to do changes over time. I think we'd have something more in this direction (although I'm sure I missed any number of obvious problems) if we were to actually pass Alan Kay's OS-101 class as an industry.

We actually sort of very briefly started heading in this direction with Marimba's "Castanet" back at the beginning of Java and I was WILDLY excited to see us trying something less dumb than the browser. Unfortunately, it would seem that economic pressures pushed Marimba into becoming a software deployment provider, which is really not what I think they were originally trying to do. Castanet should have become the OS of the web. I think Java still has the potential to create something much better than the web because a ubiquitous and very mature virtual machine is a very powerful thing, but I don't see anyone trying go there. There's this mentality of "nobody would install something better." And yet we installed Netscape and even IE...

BTW, I do think the security problems of running untrusted code are potentially solvable (at least so much as any network security problems are) using a proper messaging microkernel architecture with the trusted resource-accessing code running in one process and the untrusted code running in another. The problem with the Java sandbox (so far as I understand all that) is that it's in-process. The scary code runs with the trusted code. In theory, Java is controlled enough to protect us from the scary code, but in practice, people are really smart and one tiny screw-up in the JVM or the JDK and bad code gets permissions it shouldn't have. A lot of these errors could be controlled or eliminated by separating the trusted code from the untrusted code as in Windows NT (even if only by making the protocol for resource permissions really clear).

Post reply on HN