[flagged]
Agreed. Now the article appears to be in ALL CAPS for me, even the code block.
You Are in a Box
81–90 of 138 posts
Re: You Are in a Box
#82The key point of the article is "your data is trapped inside your program", i.e. data models can't generally be shared between programs. One thing that has improved my life has been using apache arrow as a way to decrease the friction of sharing data between different executables. With arrow (and it's file based compressed cousin parquet), the idea is that once data is produced it never needs to be deserialized again…
How are you handling data update? Last I checked, Arrow and similar systems had extremely poor performance if you needed to mutate data at even modest rates.
Re: You Are in a Box
#83Ever heard the cliche about “designing a game with no rules”? Seems pretty similar to “structured data with no boxes.” I think data boxes as defined by the author are not inherently bad. Optimization and specialization go hand-in-hand.
Re: You Are in a Box
#84Re: You Are in a Box
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not long now until we re-invent SOAP and pretend it's a productivity breakthrough.
This is called GraphQL
Having used SOAP and GraphQL, I really disagree with this characterization.
The problem I have seen at most organizations is they simply want their APIs to reflect their database schema, even if its not a good or useful idea. They throw junk over the wall.
They carry this practice over from REST to GraphQL and of course its horrible, its not a good way to use the technology.
Now organizations that understand GraphQL allows you to create a data schema unbound by its sources, they leverage GraphQL quite well, and its very pleasant to use. Unfortunately not enough organizations do this, or do this well.
SOAP was and is still simply a bad protocol and had tons of issues ranging from security to payload size to parsing issues between different clients
Re: You Are in a Box
#86Sorry, I couldn't finish reading because the entire article is in capitals.
Re: You Are in a Box
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but security is very clearly not a primary concern in Plan9. That is a myth that keeps getting propagated. https://plan9.io/sys/doc/auth.html
That paper is about factotum which was introduced in 4th edition, like I said. Regardless, I'm more talking about the fact that transport encryption still isn't used ubiquitously to my knowledge.
> That paper is about factotum which was introduced in 4th edition, like I said.
Which describes that yes, there was security in Plan 9 prior to Factotum, just that it wasn't good enough.
> Regardless, I'm more talking about the fact that transport encryption still isn't used ubiquitously to my knowledge.
It certainly is. You get SSL/TLS for free on Plan 9 as its a service. You dont mess with security code and instead use tlssrv(8). See https://man.9front.org/8/tlssrv
Re: You Are in a Box
#88Sorry, I couldn't finish reading because the entire article is in capitals.
Right? Who thinks that is acceptable in 2025?
Re: You Are in a Box
#89Just this past week I've been working on a toy/experimental web DSL [0] that uses dynamically loaded shared libraries as middleware that pass per request arena-allocated Jansson json objects between steps in a pipeline. It's extensible in that new middleware can be created. Influenced by bash and OCaml/F#, here is some kind of demo of the syntax: POST /api/users |> validate: ` name: string(3..50) email: email age?: n…
This looks really neat! I typically don't like these DSLs, but this is one I would actually use.
Re: You Are in a Box
#90Am I the only one who finds the Sam Altman-esque 'all lowercase except for proper nouns like Linux but not including the pronoun i' writing style unbearable to read?
"I" being capitalized is one of the most weird quirks of the English language.
I agree. A quick search tells me the practice was started for legibility in hand-written manuscripts [1], or for that and also to emphasize the importance of the writer (seems egotistical to me :)) [2], or those reasons and also to help distinguish English from other languages but we don't really know [3].
[1] http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhyisi.html [2] https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/whycapitali/ [3] https://greatbigstory.com/why-do-we-capitalize-the-word-i/