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

Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

jolie-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#51

Post by fmontesi »

Garlef wrote: post #40
danellis wrote: post #6

Who actually wants this? People want good libraries for doing this with the languages they already use, not to have to make compromises just so they can have a microservice. Notice that the front page gives lots of examples of the servicey parts of the code, but absolutely no examples of what the business logic looks like. In fact, even in the documentation, the example code is minimal and trivial.

I want it. You could argue that the current approach of intrastructure-as-code has it backwards: Currently, you define infrastructure, then deploy your code. Instead, I'd like to be able to write code and then connect the code through infrastructure abstractions.

Indeed, one of the nicest aspects of Jolie is that you can (semi-)automatically extract the definition of the infrastructure that you need from your code.

An example of a preliminary application that you might find interesting: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.09518

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#54

Post by slver »

danellis wrote: post #6

Who actually wants this? People want good libraries for doing this with the languages they already use, not to have to make compromises just so they can have a microservice. Notice that the front page gives lots of examples of the servicey parts of the code, but absolutely no examples of what the business logic looks like. In fact, even in the documentation, the example code is minimal and trivial.

> Who actually wants this? People want good libraries for doing this with the languages they already use

Like the JVM? This runs on JVM.

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#55

Post by Siira »

bluejekyll wrote: post #48
PedroBatista wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want it. At least the idea of it. I want something that looks like a programing language ( the mainstream ones ) that describes and specifies the flow of some functionality, not a YAML or a godforsaken XML file but also not XYZ framework that has all the implementation details. Maybe Jolie isn't what I want and has more baggage than I'm currently aware, but it somehow looks like something I need.

Could you achieve that with a language that has a sufficiently decent meta-programming option, like a macro system? It sounds like what you want is a compile time validated state machine.

Writing a language from scratch is not that different from writing a DSL using powerful macro systems. Does such a DSL already exist?

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#56

Post by jcelerier »

bluejekyll wrote: post #48
PedroBatista wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want it. At least the idea of it. I want something that looks like a programing language ( the mainstream ones ) that describes and specifies the flow of some functionality, not a YAML or a godforsaken XML file but also not XYZ framework that has all the implementation details. Maybe Jolie isn't what I want and has more baggage than I'm currently aware, but it somehow looks like something I need.

Could you achieve that with a language that has a sufficiently decent meta-programming option, like a macro system? It sounds like what you want is a compile time validated state machine.

in C++ it's simple enough that you can build one accidentally https://philippegroarke.com/posts/2020/constexpr_fsm/ :p

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#57

Post by didibus »

Slight tangent, but I much preferred the trend of language names being letters, gemstones, animals or coffee related, and something about programming languages names being commonly used woman names makes me uneasy. I don't know why, there's some sort of uncanny valley about it, some kind of scifi-esque AI-love cringe to it reminding me of the movie Her and the likes. I'm not dismissing the technical merits, and Julie sounds interesting, and I'm quite fond of Julia and Janet langs, but I've noticed this name trend and there's something interesting about this meta-social trend of using woman names for them.

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#58

Post by notacoward »

danellis wrote: post #6

Who actually wants this? People want good libraries for doing this with the languages they already use, not to have to make compromises just so they can have a microservice. Notice that the front page gives lots of examples of the servicey parts of the code, but absolutely no examples of what the business logic looks like. In fact, even in the documentation, the example code is minimal and trivial.

I also noticed that information about the actual logic part of the language seems sparse, and would offer that as feedback for the author(s), but the last thing HN needs is more people being haughty and dismissive until an absolutely rock-solid case is made for immediate utility. Isn't it enough to be curious about the ideas represented here?

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#59

Post by rajandatta »

wpietri wrote: post #45
fmontesi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a nutshell: because we want to minimise code model distance. Other languages make you program in terms of functions, objects, etc., and make yourself model services by using these concepts. In Jolie, you write code that maps directly to the concepts that matter. What are the important concepts? APIs, Access Points, and Services (duh..) are examples. Some more info at: - https://dzone.com/articles/introduction-to-j…

Could you expand on this? I'm not seeing why the "duh" is warranted. > Jolie, you write code that maps directly to the concepts that matter. What are the important concepts? APIs, Access Points, and Services (duh..) are examples. I come out of the Domain Driven Design school of thought, where the true key concepts are the domain-related ones. E.g., if you're doing ecommerce, things like Product and Order are much mor…

I'd say that you idea of Domaim is unduly restrictive. Yes, in an e-commerce or a merchandise based business, Products and Orders are domain objects. But services and ports and interfaces are every bit as real from a complementary domain - the domain Of software design and Technology Operations.

We are at historically bad levels of Interoperability because we don't really engineer software for management. We just call it an implementation detail.

Domains overlap. An e-commerce system will have a domain perspective to Infrastructure and the Infrastructure provider will have domain perspective on a Tennant like a specific e-commerce system. Bother are valid. There's real value in reducing the impedance between those views

Re: Jolie, the service-oriented programming language

#60

Post by geodel »

danellis wrote: post #6

Who actually wants this? People want good libraries for doing this with the languages they already use, not to have to make compromises just so they can have a microservice. Notice that the front page gives lots of examples of the servicey parts of the code, but absolutely no examples of what the business logic looks like. In fact, even in the documentation, the example code is minimal and trivial.

I think it may get popular for Java framework fans. Among themselves folks may bicker about J2EE, Spring or Quarkus, or Oracle Fusion, Microprofile and myriad others. But the core idea is that anyone using Java directly with some help of standard and third party libs is old fossil and should eliminated from project/company or even better from workforce entirely.

I think this language is another form of framework and unsurprisingly developed in Java for java users.

Post reply on HN