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

The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

hachibu.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#31

Post by jacobr1 »

holoduke wrote: post #19

It's funny that there is such a pro and anti js movement in the hardcore professional programming world. I know it's a bit off topic. But in every js topic here at hackernews you can feel this tension. I have never seen this before. And this place is visited by the best programmers out there . Very interesting

Here is my theory: it is a limitation of the medium of the web. In other software fields, one can use the tooling they like. But with the browser, JS is a must (nascent webasm may change that though). The Go people don't really fight the Rust folks, they just go off to their own camps, occasionally comparing and contrasting. But in the web/js world, everyone is forced to commingled, and so preferences collide.

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#32

Post by rantwasp »

doubleunplussed wrote: post #22
rantwasp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. it's more like copy-on-write than a completely different replica. also, the probability of the outcomes is not the same (ie some worlds may be more equal/present than others). it's questionable if it's one world or a split happens and we have multiple worlds. I would lean toward one world with phenomena that we don't really understand.

The main thing that's wrong is that we have no reason to believe the fundamental constants change. Regular quantum mechanics is compatible with the many-worlds interpretation (of course it is), but talk of fundamental constants changing would require new theories that we don't have (not to mention evidence of those theories). That would be something incompatible with quantum mechanics as we know it, within which the…

just because those constants are incompatible with our current understanding does not mean it's not possible, even if only on a theoretical level.

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#33

Post by archgoon »

lalaithion wrote: post #2

> The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics imagines our universe as one node in an infinitely branching tree of universes where every possible quantum outcome exists in its own universe. And each time a universe branches, it creates a child universe that is slightly different from the parent universe, e.g., universal constants such as gravity and the speed of light might differ. Pretty sure this is flat ou…

Well; another problem is that saying that branching happens at all is to miss the point of MWI; which is to avoid collapse. There aren't any discrete "branching" events.

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#34

Post by Spivak »

holoduke wrote: post #19

It's funny that there is such a pro and anti js movement in the hardcore professional programming world. I know it's a bit off topic. But in every js topic here at hackernews you can feel this tension. I have never seen this before. And this place is visited by the best programmers out there . Very interesting

It's a combination of popularity, forced usage, organic growth, and maturity.

If every single developer ever had to write Java we would see the same complaints.

* A ridiculous amount of dependencies and tooling.

* As many competing ways to architect programs as there are Java developers.

* Lots of warts and quirks due to design missteps in hindsight. Ignored by the people who love it but grating to the people who don't.

* As many "the good parts" as there are Java developers.

* Everyone complaining about Spring like they do React.

For most languages if you don't like it you don't use it. But with JS (just like Java in the 90's and 00's) even if you don't vibe with JS it's completely unavoidable.

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#36

Post by schwartzworld »

runawaybottle wrote: post #4
lalaithion wrote: post #2

> The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics imagines our universe as one node in an infinitely branching tree of universes where every possible quantum outcome exists in its own universe. And each time a universe branches, it creates a child universe that is slightly different from the parent universe, e.g., universal constants such as gravity and the speed of light might differ. Pretty sure this is flat ou…

I might be conflating this with parallel universes, but what would be an example of this? If variations of ‘me’ exist in all worlds, am I the universal constant? Speaking as the center of the universe as far I’m concerned over here :p

versions of you could not exist in all worlds, but there are still an infinite number of universes where you exist

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#37

Post by schwartzworld »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #35
thrower123 wrote: post #25

I sort of wish I could trade places with the version of me in the universe where Flash wasn't murdered.

You liked flash programming??

I never programmed flash, but I consumed plenty of it. The internet is a less interesting place without flash websites.

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#39

Post by thrower123 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #35
thrower123 wrote: post #25

I sort of wish I could trade places with the version of me in the universe where Flash wasn't murdered.

You liked flash programming??

I think I would appreciate it now, and the JavaScript that replaced it is really horrible. We haven't really gained any ground in about fifteen years, in real terms, there's just been a lot of swirling.

Even WebAssembly's best case scenario is... Java Applets done a smidgeon better.

Re: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of JavaScript

#40

Post by krapp »

thrower123 wrote: post #39
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You liked flash programming??

I think I would appreciate it now, and the JavaScript that replaced it is really horrible. We haven't really gained any ground in about fifteen years, in real terms, there's just been a lot of swirling. Even WebAssembly's best case scenario is... Java Applets done a smidgeon better.

WebAssembly's best case scenario is "native software compiled to run to the web." Unlike Java applets, WebAssembly isn't tied to a specific language or runtime, so that "smidge" in the case of being inclusive of so many languages is pretty big.

You could even run Flash sites in WebAssembly, the only thing stopping that from happening is copyright law. It would probably be even safer and run faster than Adobe's plugin.

Post reply on HN