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

Urbit: a personal cloud computer

doc.urbit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 281 posts

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#31

Post by gojomo »

amelius wrote: 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 :)

Here's an idea: maybe anyone accusing someone else of being "too ambitious" should share one of their own projects that demonstrates exactly the right level of ambition.

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#32

Post by amelius »

GuiA wrote: post #24
amelius wrote: 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.

And what is the reason why an existing language and compiler doesn't suffice for 1 and 2?

For example, Haskell and GHC took decades to become what they are now (a powerful language and compiler). It seems quite wasteful to rebuild that work. If absolutely desired, Haskell can also be converted into combinator form, and vice versa, so why not use it? Seriously.

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#36

Post by pyre »

gojomo wrote: post #31
amelius wrote: 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 :)

Here's an idea: maybe anyone accusing someone else of being "too ambitious" should share one of their own projects that demonstrates exactly the right level of ambition.

So in your opinion nothing is ever too ambitious? Or is it just that no one should every be allowed to utter the words "too ambitious?"

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#37

Post by tcdowney »

adamnemecek wrote: post #27
amelius wrote: 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.

It's as if it were inspired by all of the bad parts of a Dan Friedman text. :)

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#39

Post by cdcarter »

amelius wrote: post #32
GuiA wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And what is the reason why an existing language and compiler doesn't suffice for 1 and 2? For example, Haskell and GHC took decades to become what they are now (a powerful language and compiler). It seems quite wasteful to rebuild that work. If absolutely desired, Haskell can also be converted into combinator form, and vice versa, so why not use it? Seriously.

Because it's incredibly fun to work on? It's a brilliant VM once you wrap your brain around it, and the hackers behind it got to really try something new?

Re: Urbit: a personal cloud computer

#40

Post by ctdonath »

pyre wrote: post #36
gojomo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an idea: maybe anyone accusing someone else of being "too ambitious" should share one of their own projects that demonstrates exactly the right level of ambition.

So in your opinion nothing is ever too ambitious? Or is it just that no one should every be allowed to utter the words "too ambitious?"

That logic is like

X "oh, so X is always zero, huh?"

Post reply on HN