Live data from Hacker News

Urbit: a personal cloud computer

doc.urbit.org

21–30 of 281 posts

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#21
So let me get this straight. This project is going to define

1. A new computing model, similar to how combinators work.

2. A programming language which produces expressions involving these combinators.

3. An operating system built on the above.

4. A cloud computing environment built on the above.

Sorry, but while interesting, this sounds a little too ambitious, even by HN standards :)

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#22
post #21

So let me get this straight. This project is going to define 1. A new computing model, similar to how combinators work. 2. A programming language which produces expressions involving these combinators. 3. An operating system built on the above. 4. A cloud computing environment built on the above. Sorry, but while interesting, this sounds a little too ambitious, even by HN standards :)

Going to? All of those already exist and run, today. :)

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#24
post #21

So let me get this straight. This project is going to define 1. A new computing model, similar to how combinators work. 2. A programming language which produces expressions involving these combinators. 3. An operating system built on the above. 4. A cloud computing environment built on the above. Sorry, but while interesting, this sounds a little too ambitious, even by HN standards :)

s/This project is going to define/This project is defining/

There's code that you can run and can play with. It may sound super far fetched (and it is), but the guy behind it is putting sweat into it.

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#25
post #19
post #3

This is either a very elaborate joke or the future of computing.

They had me going in the Nock spec until "We should note that in Nock and Hoon, 0 (pronounced "yes") is true, and 1 ("no") is false. Why? It's fresh, it's different, it's new. And it's annoying. And it keeps you on your toes. And it's also just intuitively right."

The same spirit seems to apply everywhere. The Hoon tutorial shows an incredibly elaborate way to build a decrement function, and it notes:

"As you may remember, to decrement 'a' we need to count up to it."

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#26
post #19
post #3

This is either a very elaborate joke or the future of computing.

They had me going in the Nock spec until "We should note that in Nock and Hoon, 0 (pronounced "yes") is true, and 1 ("no") is false. Why? It's fresh, it's different, it's new. And it's annoying. And it keeps you on your toes. And it's also just intuitively right."

To be fair, that's also pretty close to exit code semantics on most POSIX systems, where 0 is success and non-zero is failure...

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#27
post #21

So let me get this straight. This project is going to define 1. A new computing model, similar to how combinators work. 2. A programming language which produces expressions involving these combinators. 3. An operating system built on the above. 4. A cloud computing environment built on the above. Sorry, but while interesting, this sounds a little too ambitious, even by HN standards :)

It also appears that the new language defines 0 as true and 1 as false: "A loobean, or just bean, is 0 or 1. 0 is yes, 1 is no:"

http://doc.urbit.org/doc/hoon/tut/1/

Reading this feels a lot like dropping acid.

That being said, I'm curious what will come out of this.

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#28
post #19
post #3

This is either a very elaborate joke or the future of computing.

They had me going in the Nock spec until "We should note that in Nock and Hoon, 0 (pronounced "yes") is true, and 1 ("no") is false. Why? It's fresh, it's different, it's new. And it's annoying. And it keeps you on your toes. And it's also just intuitively right."

Here's one possible intuition:

There is one ground truth, origin, fixed point like the North Star: zero. There are an infinite number of possible falsehoods: all nonzero numbers. But Urbit chooses 1 as the canonical false.

Post reply on HN