> Add new data by wrapping it into a tuple and tossing it into the pile In David Gelernter's original work, it's not just data. In Linda, it's possible to put Objects in, which are little executable (`eval` in Linda terms) which a processor can manipulate through whatever interface the tuple type exposes.
This exactly. Sadly the idea went through a low pass filter and just became a way to pass around dumb data objects.
1. Just bare like that, it's not. Unless, of course, the object requires a key to allow a processor to execute it. See for example Capability-Based Access Control 2. In TupleWorld, there's no concept of "the" intended recipient. The tuple's properties determine what kind of processor would match. If those properties happen to only match a single processor, you'd get that 1:1 mapping you want, but that's missing the p…
Just coordinating the 1:1 mapping I might want is fraught with challenges. Network delays, out-of-order execution, stampeding herd situations, poison objects, processors crashing (or being rebooted) at random times... I'm not seeing the benefit of a "bag" of objects to be processed whenever by whoever or whatever. Perhaps this is attempting to solve a problem I've not come across. While it sounds interesting, I'm not…
Also, on "poison objects". We execute Javascript all the time in our browsers. Sandboxing and other measures keep the executable objects from exploiting our computers. It's imperfect, of course, and there are still exploits, but that's the general approach. Things like out-of-order execution and so forth require careful parallel design, but that's pretty much the bread-and-butter of things like SETI@Home
"This site uses features not available in older browsers." It is difficult to express the degree of my frustration with C2 being rewritten from a gunmetal HTML page that worked everywhere into an inaccessible heavyweight SPA mess with a frankly bizarre UI.
I don't get the qualm.
It works like the Wikipedia mouse-over popups. (Besides that you need to click.)
That's actually quite convenient.
The only real issue is that it does strange things to the browser back button. (Seems like a bug to not pop stuff form the history stack when closing the "popups".)
> Add new data by wrapping it into a tuple and tossing it into the pile In David Gelernter's original work, it's not just data. In Linda, it's possible to put Objects in, which are little executable (`eval` in Linda terms) which a processor can manipulate through whatever interface the tuple type exposes.
This exactly. Sadly the idea went through a low pass filter and just became a way to pass around dumb data objects.
Honestly, I suspect the other, fancier parts of the idea were more like a solution in search of a problem.
Your comment was flagged, I assume for the ChatGPT dump, but that seemed unreasonable to me so I vouched for it.
Thank you :) Upon reflection perhaps this is fair enough, all Hacker News discussions might descend into ~50% ChatGPT content. I'll endeavour to put what ChatGPT produces through my messy human filter. Humans before bots? Guys before AIs. Ho(mo sapien)s before b(r)o ... doesn't quite work.
No offense, but how is it an advance? Who needs a wiki that can't be edited? (If I'm mistaken about this, maybe someone can educate me)
If you know git: a federated wiki works like that. To make a federated wiki work like a traditional wiki, you can think of there as being a "canonical copy" which you can clone, make edits, and then use a 'pull request' process for incorporating those edits back into the original. But you also don't need to have a single source of truth: you can, for example, have a group of people—say, students studying for a class—…
Thanks! I'm aware of the abstract technical idea, but is there any evidence that Ward's wiki ever worked like that? Did he ever accept a "pull request" or are there any notable forks which do?