4 ms·

>Are you suggesting that in this case, unidirectional UI flow is just another name for a FSM? Yup. The UI reads its current-state data, which comes in on an e

by mmjaa 9y ago

>Are you suggesting that in this case, unidirectional UI flow is just another name for a FSM? Yup. The UI reads its current-state data, which comes in on an event queue, and renders the display accordingly. This is a state machine.

jnbiche 9y ago
Well, as someone else said, just about anything physical could be modeled as a state machine. That doesn't mean we use the term state machine to describe just about everything physical. Are you seriously suggesting we abandon terms like "unidirectional UI flow" and just describe those architectures as state machines? You would be missing the most important part of the term, which is the flow of events. State machine says nothing about that. I mean, if you're reducing the event flow of a UI to a state machine, why use the term MVC, right? It's just a state machine at heart, right? A lexer? Oh, that's just a state machine, forget about the term lexer. The various Markov models? Oh, just a state machine. etc. etc.
- jasode 9y ago
  >just about anything physical could be modeled as a state machine. [...] Are you seriously suggesting we abandon terms like "unidirectional UI flow" and just describe those architectures as state machines? Fyi ... a meta observation about this type of discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters It's an invisible underlying theme of many programming debates and the participants often don't realize it's happening. (Personally, I like "splitting" for communication of nuance to others but I also like "lumping" to understand that many things are variations of an underlying principle. E.g. a "file system" is a "database" which is lumping but if I want to communicate to others, splitting is better and I'll call it the "Mac HFS file system" instead of "Mac database" which would just confuse the hell out of everyone.)
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    I do understand the semantic disagreement we're having here, but most of all I'm upset (really upset this morning) about the tone he/she and others here have toward someone who is exploring new CS ideas and techniques and learning things, for God's sake. And also, taking the time to write up what they learn, which is a step farther than I get on most weeks. It just makes me sad to think that "Hacker News" is so down on someone who seems to be the prototypical curious hacker who is just starting out his programming career.
    - jasode 9y ago
      >I'm upset (really upset this morning) about the tone he/she and others here have toward someone who is exploring new CS idea [...] It just makes me sad to think that "Hacker News" is so down on someone who seems to be the prototypical curious hacker I totally understand your frustration. This 17 or 18-year-old[1] didn't meet mmjaa's standards[2] to write about programming and apparently, many HN'ers feel the same way. Maybe that's how the majority of HN community wants it to be. I honestly don't know. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15116484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15116484 [2] a common "get off my lawn!" type of sentiment[1]: "To me, the "Full Stack" developer is simply someone who cares about whats happening under the hood. The "millennial developers" simply don't." -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990097
      - mmjaa 9y ago
        > exploring new CS ideas and techniques The point is, this isn't a "new CS idea and technique" - in fact, this technique is as old as computer UI's themselves. I have no idea how old this developer is, my only issue is that there is a re-invention of terminology and a whole new ontology being defined here, for something that has been a stock-standard CompSci concept for decades. Its one thing to call me out as a grumpy old fart "not on my lawn"-ist - but its another thing to call out people who constantly re-invent the wheel and give it a new coat of paint, too. That is really my only motivation: to indicate that there is very little to be gained, productively, from ignoring the lessons of the past, "re-discovering" something, then slapping a new label on it. This doesn't do our industry any good - yet the practice is rampant. It seems, ever generation of CompSci graduates or so, someone gets the idea to invent something cool, which they've never heard of before, and proclaim that it is a unique insight into the field - whereas the fact is, its just a new coat of paint over an empty hole where the understanding should be. We go through this psychosis every 4 or 5 years or so, in the computer world - so many times, we've re-invented the wheel and given it a new lick o' paint, calling it cool. I would, personally, like to see a bit more care given to this aspect of things by newcomers to this field - and rest assured, you can sit on my lawn as long as you cut it first.

by mmjaa 9y ago

jnbiche 9y ago

Well, as someone else said, just about anything physical could be modeled as a state machine. That doesn't mean we use the term state machine to describe just about everything physical. Are you seriously suggesting we abandon terms like "unidirectional UI flow" and just describe those architectures as state machines? You would be missing the most important part of the term, which is the flow of events. State machine says nothing about that. I mean, if you're reducing the event flow of a UI to a state machine, why use the term MVC, right? It's just a state machine at heart, right? A lexer? Oh, that's just a state machine, forget about the term lexer. The various Markov models? Oh, just a state machine. etc. etc.

jasode 9y ago
>just about anything physical could be modeled as a state machine. [...] Are you seriously suggesting we abandon terms like "unidirectional UI flow" and just describe those architectures as state machines? Fyi ... a meta observation about this type of discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters It's an invisible underlying theme of many programming debates and the participants often don't realize it's happening. (Personally, I like "splitting" for communication of nuance to others but I also like "lumping" to understand that many things are variations of an underlying principle. E.g. a "file system" is a "database" which is lumping but if I want to communicate to others, splitting is better and I'll call it the "Mac HFS file system" instead of "Mac database" which would just confuse the hell out of everyone.)
- jnbiche 9y ago
  I do understand the semantic disagreement we're having here, but most of all I'm upset (really upset this morning) about the tone he/she and others here have toward someone who is exploring new CS ideas and techniques and learning things, for God's sake. And also, taking the time to write up what they learn, which is a step farther than I get on most weeks. It just makes me sad to think that "Hacker News" is so down on someone who seems to be the prototypical curious hacker who is just starting out his programming career.
  - jasode 9y ago
    >I'm upset (really upset this morning) about the tone he/she and others here have toward someone who is exploring new CS idea [...] It just makes me sad to think that "Hacker News" is so down on someone who seems to be the prototypical curious hacker I totally understand your frustration. This 17 or 18-year-old[1] didn't meet mmjaa's standards[2] to write about programming and apparently, many HN'ers feel the same way. Maybe that's how the majority of HN community wants it to be. I honestly don't know. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15116484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15116484 [2] a common "get off my lawn!" type of sentiment[1]: "To me, the "Full Stack" developer is simply someone who cares about whats happening under the hood. The "millennial developers" simply don't." -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990097
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      > exploring new CS ideas and techniques The point is, this isn't a "new CS idea and technique" - in fact, this technique is as old as computer UI's themselves. I have no idea how old this developer is, my only issue is that there is a re-invention of terminology and a whole new ontology being defined here, for something that has been a stock-standard CompSci concept for decades. Its one thing to call me out as a grumpy old fart "not on my lawn"-ist - but its another thing to call out people who constantly re-invent the wheel and give it a new coat of paint, too. That is really my only motivation: to indicate that there is very little to be gained, productively, from ignoring the lessons of the past, "re-discovering" something, then slapping a new label on it. This doesn't do our industry any good - yet the practice is rampant. It seems, ever generation of CompSci graduates or so, someone gets the idea to invent something cool, which they've never heard of before, and proclaim that it is a unique insight into the field - whereas the fact is, its just a new coat of paint over an empty hole where the understanding should be. We go through this psychosis every 4 or 5 years or so, in the computer world - so many times, we've re-invented the wheel and given it a new lick o' paint, calling it cool. I would, personally, like to see a bit more care given to this aspect of things by newcomers to this field - and rest assured, you can sit on my lawn as long as you cut it first.