Live data from Hacker News

Eve Version 0

chris-granger.com

31–40 of 195 posts

Re: Eve Version 0

#31

So after they didn't exactly revolutionize the IDE with Light Table, and pivoted to revolutionizing programming, they seem to have kind of come around to revolutionizing... groupware? Which at least seems more plausible, as it ought to be possible to make a better groupware application than Lotus Notes. I think the larger implication is: Programming tools are actually pretty good, and the larger process of programmin…

> I think the larger implication is...

I do not believe it is reasonable to draw that broad conclusion based on one example

Re: Eve Version 0

#32
I think the major problem with this approach is trying to solve the general Problem.

These graphical abstractions can be excellent when tailored to a domain. We are shipping a product right now that abstracts the database away through a little graphical graph editor like this one to transform it into the domain language of the people (non programmers) that are consuming the data.

It is quite excellent.

Re: Eve Version 0

#33
post #4

Bugs me when people choose a name that's already being used for something much better known.

You mean the game? Not sure there's much potential for confusion.

There is a Python library called Eve for creating REST endpoints based on your database schema. I thought that was what this was since that is also in version 0.

Re: Eve Version 0

#35
> In order to accomplish that, we do need a way to describe processes. We need a way to "program." But switching the goal from building applications to analyzing and communicating information changes everything. Our current programming tools are awful thinking tools. Instead, they were designed to build complex systems. How much effort does it take to write a program to scan through your facebook friends and check to see if someone who usually isn't in your area currently is?...People aren't really tring to build the next Facebook, they're trying to use the information from it in a different way.

The example given here by the OP strikes me as a good example of how and why programming is complicated, and what people generally want their programs to do is unlikely to be doable without knowing how to program.

Case in point: why can't a layperson just make a little app "to scan through your facebook friends and check to see if someone who usually isn't in your area currently is"? The ease, glib answer is: well, Facebook's developer API requires several hoops to jump through, including OAuth of clients and so forth. So that's why there's no drag-and-drop-plug-and-play module system for such a feature.

The bigger answer is the answer to the question of why does Facebook's API have to be so complicated? Well, besides business reasons...FB's API is a public-facing abstraction over a system in which a billion people have agreed to (semi-)authenticate themselves and communicate a variety of real-time things about themselves. As annoying as it is to program your own little FB apps...it's complicated because the system it interfaces with is overwhelmingly and amazingly complicated.

I don't see much room for improvement in making programming easier in this regard. It'd be like making Shakespeare more digestible to people who don't want to learn to read (OK, ignoring oral storytelling, for this limited analogy)

Re: Eve Version 0

#36
post #35

> In order to accomplish that, we do need a way to describe processes. We need a way to "program." But switching the goal from building applications to analyzing and communicating information changes everything. Our current programming tools are awful thinking tools. Instead, they were designed to build complex systems. How much effort does it take to write a program to scan through your facebook friends and check to…

I would argue that an API is easier to learn by several factors regardless of how complex it is compared to the abstract reasoning and modelling skills to actually transform the faced problems into a precise model.

Re: Eve Version 0

#37
post #35

> In order to accomplish that, we do need a way to describe processes. We need a way to "program." But switching the goal from building applications to analyzing and communicating information changes everything. Our current programming tools are awful thinking tools. Instead, they were designed to build complex systems. How much effort does it take to write a program to scan through your facebook friends and check to…

Agree -- if Facebook had an "export my friend list to Excel" button, then plenty of non-programmers could perform this task using existing tools.

I read the tutorial and I am sort of struggling to see what benefit this would give someone who was already an Excel power-user.

Re: Eve Version 0

#39
post #32

I think the major problem with this approach is trying to solve the general Problem. These graphical abstractions can be excellent when tailored to a domain. We are shipping a product right now that abstracts the database away through a little graphical graph editor like this one to transform it into the domain language of the people (non programmers) that are consuming the data. It is quite excellent.

Can you explain more, or even share your project? It sounds quite interesting.

Re: Eve Version 0

#40
post #17
post #2

Interesting ideas, very different, but still reminds me a lot of Light Table (probably because they have the same author :p) Seems to be built on a rather interesting Rust + TypeScript stack? Can't say I've seen that one before - anyone have experience with such a stack?

The stack choice is especially interesting since I thought they were big fans of Clojure. I would like to hear their rationale for Rust/TypeScript over Clojure/ClojureScript (or Clojure/Javascript). EDIT: typo

Why is jamii's reply to this dead? It is very informative and on-topic.
Post reply on HN