Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s not-so-secret new OS

techspecs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 561 posts

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#471

Post by fmap »

throwawaydbfif wrote: post #377
bertrand-caron wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on how "functional languages were largely superceded by OO languages eons ago for many reasons people are slowly redicovering" ?

Erlang and common lisp have been around for a long time, and functional programming is nothing new. The reality is that most business problems map conceptually to communication between objects, and that IDE's which greatly help developer productivity work a lot better with objects. Functional programming has origins in lambda calculus and academia because mathematical problems map more easily from pure math to functi…

Who "choose" OO 20 years ago and (much more importantly) why?

I'm going to ignore the social component... that said, we work in a wonderful profession where the world is changing completely every decade and many design decisions from the previous generation make no sense anymore. The business case for developing your application in COBOL rather than Common Lisp may have been sound 20 years ago, but today many of the reason why you didn't choose lisp are invalid (e.g., garbage collection takes milliseconds rather than seconds).

Note that this is not the case in more mature fields such as construction.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#472

Post by npsimons »

vii wrote: post #53

It's awesome that Google is doing this and in public too https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/ Unfortunately, the hard part of an operating system isn't in a cool API and a rendering demo. It's in integrating the fickle whims of myriad hardware devices with amazingly high expectations of reliability and performance consistency under diverse workloads. People don't like dropped frames when they plug in USB :) Writing devi…

> It's in integrating the fickle whims of myriad hardware devices with amazingly high expectations of reliability and performance consistency under diverse workloads.

So much this; Linux Plumbers conference years ago was bitching about how every gorram vendor wanted to be a special snowflake, so even though the architecture was ARM, you basically had to port the kernel all over again to every new phone. I haven't kept up with it, but I can't imagine it's gotten better. The problems they're listing as reasons to move to a new kernel aren't caused by Linux and they won't go away until you slap the vendors and slap them hard for the bullshit they pull, both on developers and users.

As for kernel ABI, this has been rehashed to death: just release your fucking driver as open source code, and it will be integrated and updated in mainline forever: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers.html

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#473

Post by innocentoldguy »

throwawaydbfif wrote: post #353
innocentoldguy wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see your point about transpilers. Of all the transpilers I've used, I like Elm the best, due to its functional nature, syntax, strong typing, compiler, and debugger. It isn't fully stable yet, as a language, and there have been breaking changes in each release since I started using it, but it offers the most promising departure from JavaScript. I guess anything that facilitates the de-turding of web development…

Haha de-turding is a great way to put it. I just don't think a new language is a reasonable option. There's what maybe... 50,000 different versions of the ~500 web browsers from different eras still running out there somewhere? If having code work almost everywhere is important for a project, that project will be using vanilla ES3-5 JavaScript for the next 10+ years. Maybe not the latest startups but all sorts of ent…

I do see your point about C++. I was programming when it first came out, back in 1985. However, I've always thought C++ felt "Band-aid-y." It never felt elegant and cohesive to me, the way Objective C does. C++ is like a chainsaw-hang-glider-shotgun-bat; badass, to say the least, but still a clumpy work of bailing wire and duct tape. Typescript feels the same way, only not quite so badass. It's more like the Robin to C++'s Batman.

Having said that, my only exposure to Typescript has been in Angular 2. Having used other tools like Ember, React, and Elm, Angular 2 seems like a magic step backwards to me. I will concede that my opinions on Typescript may be tinted by my experience with Angular 2 though, so I'll give Typescript a stand-alone, honest evaluation, and adjust my opinions as necessary.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#474

Post by thwd »

sp332 wrote: post #463
thwd wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dart can compile to JS, so that edge is covered. Dart bytecode is arguably an easier target for other language compilers than, say, assembly. The DartVM's byte code is fully specified, there is some adoption, it's openly accessible, and there's a bold, production-ready reference implementation. For wasm, only half of that is true.

Compiling Dart to JS is a very different problem than compiling JS or other languages to Dart.

I understand what you mean and agree. But then, you don't need to compile JS into Dart. Rather, JS into DartVM byte code.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#475

Post by macintux »

skj wrote: post #469
macintux wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a platform concern. Not only does the OS UI reflect the input method, every single application you run does as well. A touch-optimized application will be clumsy and primitive when using a mouse; a mouse-optimized application will be miserable when using a finger. If an application can be written once for both, often it'll be a poor compromise or only properly support one of the two input methods. Look at how…

I think a single platform for all our devices: mobile, tablet, desktop, etc, is a mistake. The word platform means more than just the OS and includes the entire L&F/experience with the UI. I think a single OS for them all is fine. Consider gnome+linux vs android+linux. They're both linux, and they're not the same platform.

By that definition, I could argue Apple got there years ago by using the same core kernel and frameworks for OS X and iOS.

That's clearly not what the original poster was arguing.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#476

Post by kyrra »

michaelmrose wrote: post #249

It was unfortunately obvious that the writer had insufficient tech chops when use the phrase "a post-API programming model" But pressing on how somehow manages to blame the lack of updates to android phones on the modularity of the Linux kernel. The joke of course being that linux is monolithic and googles new OS is a microkernel ergo more modular. The quote is "...however. I also have to imagine the Android update p…

And even if they upstream their changes, whatever versions of Android they are trying to get in at launch would still need the changes back ported to whatever kernels those run. Plus you're not guaranteed that android will move to whatever kenrel version the upstream changes landed in.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#477

Post by usrusr »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #435
usrusr wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way they can get more of your money is to sell you a new phone which they hope to do between 1-2 years from now. Which is why I would absolutely love to see a hardware vendor adopt paid updates, with a mission statement along these lines: "we cannot believably promise a reliable progression of software updates, because too many before is have tried and failed. What we can do, however, is rewrite the rules…

Could that back fire? There are cases where humans judge taking no action because it avoids costs as inherently better than taking action to bring in profit even when others in general are better off. I could see a lot of people getting mad at being charged for updates which cost money who wouldn't get mad when there are no updates because the company doesn't want to lose money making free updates. It's almost like a…

It would certainly not be good business for a consumerism-centered brand like Samsung and it would even be suicidal for Apple to suddenly start charging for updates. But for an Android brand built around sustainability, like e.g. Fairphone, it could be a considerable credibility gain if they replaced a promise of future gifts with a proposal for future business.

No matter how updates happen, if they do the effort will be paid for with money coming from the customer, one way or the other. Any payment scheme other than pay on delivery requires trust and that specific form of trust has evaporated a long time ago.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#478

Post by techenthusiast »

mastax wrote: post #75
yen223 wrote: post #7

Rust as a first-class language?

I believe the article over-sells Fuchsia's use of Rust. Raph Levien wrote some bindings to the OS runtime, and he does work at Google, but his Rust work is not-official. (or that's the story as I remember it)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I updated the article to be more conservative about Rust's inclusion.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#479

Post by frozenport »

sametmax wrote: post #401
frozenport wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's written in C. There is little beyond syntax that a different language can offer because a modern OS cannot afford features like garbage collection. Indeed, this was one of the research aims of MS's Singularity project.

They could have written it in Rust. No garbage collection, more security guaranties. Easier to contribute to the code properly.

Rust performed 3x slower and hacking around the language made it somewhat of a mess [1]. Much like Singularity, this is hardly a success story. Although Singularity was interesting from a research perspective nobody doubted that an OS could be written in Rust.

https://scialex.github.io/reenix.pdf

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#480

Post by thecrazyone »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #326
dx034 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say that for every new Gorilla glass. It'll always be super resistant against anything. Yet, the newest iPhones still scratch if you just have them in the same pocket as your keys for more than a day (personal experience). And it's still very easy to destroy the screen if the phone drops once (even though less of the screen will crack nowadays). We are very far away from phones that you could use without screen…

Scratches are one thing; you can work around them with disposable screen protectors. But we're talking about a device that's constantly carried around and used (I probably have my phone on me more often than my wallet). Gorilla glass or not, it falls from a meter onto a hard surface, and you have a screen to replace. You accidentally sit on it, and you may have a screen to replace. And given the prices of replacement…

That's an interesting insight on what happens in Shenzen. If the cost is a 2x or more lesser, I wonder why that is not a thriving business, even across countries
Post reply on HN