3 ms·
Without addressing the merits of Urbit, these examples aren't valid. A third of a building is just a building in progress (foundations laid, i-beams installed,
by KingMob 11y ago
Without addressing the merits of Urbit, these examples aren't valid. A third of a building is just a building in progress (foundations laid, i-beams installed, etc.) A third of a cow is a calf.
It might be the case that you will get synergistic effects and/or Urbit's vision isn't possible without solving multiple problems. But it could equally be you've bitten off more than you could chew by choosing to work on multiple orthogonal problems.
- idlewords 11y agoA third of a cow is dinner!
- galaxyLogic 11y agoThanks. Dividera et Impera. This is the whole idea behind modularity. Solve the network-abstraction problem the best way you can. Then solve the programming language problem the best you can. Do we need a "network programming language"? Maybe, but general purpose programming languages are better for other things, and they too should be able to talk to the network "layer". I probably missed a lot on the article, it was so long to read. Of course if you have new concepts they need a name of their own. But that only applies if all the new concepts really are new. If they are the same old concepts, use the same old commonly understood name. If they are somewhat different, use a derived name, like "Big Potatoes". They are LIKE potatoes, but they are really big. If they are totally different, try to invent a name that EXPLAINS THEM BY COMBINING the names of previously existing concepts. How many people program in "BrainFuck" and get paid for it? There must be a reason that there are not so many professional brainfuck programmers around. Nevertheless I applaud this project for thinking outside the box, if that is possible they have done it.