4 ms·

I'm glad he has a research budget, I just wish his work was open source. The fact that its not means that there is a huge barrier for anybody to actually use th

by evv 9y ago

I'm glad he has a research budget, I just wish his work was open source. The fact that its not means that there is a huge barrier for anybody to actually use these ideas. Most of us don't have a team of engineers that we can task for a year to build something like Xcode playgrounds. A fun opposite example, of somebody who hasn't invented anything in particular, but solves real user's problems in an open-source, practical way? Matt Mullenweg. Wordpress powers ~30% of sites on internet. I'm not saying that Brett should be more like Matt. I'm saying that a little bit of openness goes a long way.

jarmitage 9y ago
To understand why Bret does not open source, you need to watch this talk from his lab's ethnographer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dweVuJBoK6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dweVuJBoK6o Money quote: "In the CDG, prototypes work decidedly against usefulness. That's the mantra, against usefulness. To be very clear, this being against usefulness is not the being against usefulness of artists, who like to do their autonomy. It's also not the grumbling hate of engineers who hate users, stupid users who don't understand their products. The paradoxical reason for the need to avoid usefulness is the experience that usefulness can stop the overall longer process of bootstrapping. Yes, at the end of the process of bootstrapping, products need to be shipped. But before this happened, usefulness is feared, at least for many researchers in the CDG, as a trap. Once you produce useful tools, they reify. Usefulness reacts to present users, and present users are not the future users that the lab is working towards. Useful prototypes stop being pointers of something larger, more long-term than what the prototype achieves. Useful prototypes become a means to an end demand, too much attention, become solutions, and maybe even are in danger of being turned into opportunities." Now whether you think your understanding of open source differs from Bret's is an interesting question. But it seems like his is "throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks is no way to reinvent a civilisation."
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  A less charitable interpretation might be that many of these ideas are actually not workable -- and never will be -- in the real world where you can't just insert special cases whenever you need to. (I've seen this sooooo often in research code.) It's also not just a question of computing resources. <rant incoming, be warned> I'll use the Mario example from one of his first widely disseminated talks as an example: In the Mario example you see him run time backwards. That's actually reasonably achievable by just recording all previous states or (more plausibly) all state changes and then "just" replaying backwards. Then he runs time forwards again after having changed a setting (or some such). This is, again achievable within limits, see e.g. "rr". The problem comes when he shows a projected future path of Mario. Because of a) Turing Completeness (TC) + the Halting problem, and b) the fact that much code actually interacts with other systems which are not able to just rewind (and/or themselves interact with systems that ...). The only plausible scenario in which this is even remotely possible in practice is if the programs adhere to strict rules about side effects, have built-in "project into the future" (or have no side effects so that we can run them to see what the results are _without affecting anything external_.). That is, it's not about fancy IDEs -- it's about programming languages and turning away from Turing Completeness and/or non-abstract/non-formalized effects. FRP/(React+Flux) sort of work for this if you adhere strictly to purity, but then again break down when it comes to things like "what is the focused element" if the user clicks around when you're replaying. I don't want to be a party-pooper, but good luck changing the programming paradigm of everyone to achieve this vision. For it to work everything has to work in this FRPish way, and that's just never going to happen -- for example, networks (for real-world reasons) cannot behave this way, etc. etc. I WISH we could have everything behave this way, but we can't -- billions of e.g. browser installations which have to have backward-compatible DOM implementations and millions (billions?) of installations of C/C++-based operating systems say so. Now, I'm not against Imagining Things How They Could Be, but if there's mathematical proof that "thing X" is not possible one either needs to explain how you are not doing "thing X" (perhaps not using a TC language, or disallowing non-pure state) or shut up. Brett Victor and many "visionaries" like him are just very bad at stating their fundamental assumptions up front (which is perhaps part of the reason we don't get to see the code, it's probably just simple pure FRP-like code) so that we can evaluate the vision against the assumptions. (Light Table just seemed to assume that the assumptions were plausible and see where that got them. Funded but with very little actual technological advancement to show for it.) ... and also don't get me started on the whole "Kill Math" thing. Ugh. (Sorry about the rantish nature of this -- I should probably just write this up properly somewhere so I could properly flesh it out. I just get tired of this "What A Genius!" and "Well, it would take too much time away from inspiration to actually make the thing!" credulous nonsense.)
  - cmontella 9y ago
    I worked with Chris on Eve, which was the project he started after he hit a wall with Light Table, that wall being the limitations of programming languages you outline here. Eve did have strict no side effects requirements, and did have the ability to log and rewind programs. The bulk of our work was in nailing down a good set of semantics, and also in figuring out a good way to present those semantics to users (syntax, UI, etc.). After writing countless programs in this style, which is very different from conventional programming, I have to say the Mario example is a nice demo, but in reality we didn't find time-travel useful in scenarios like that. What was infinitely useful though, was being able to trace the provenance of different values in your program for debugging. Since we kept information around that the compiler usually throws away, we could tell you exactly how a value or UI element was calculated, and give you tools for interacting with that history that just aren't possible in other languages. For instance, you could encounter a bug, pack up the state of your session, send that over to another dev, and he/she would see exactly the environment in which your code was executing. You bring up the good point that not everything is written in this way, and so interacting with external code can be tricky. For example, you might have some code that sends out an email every time the system memory reaches a threshold. Now, you might get an e-mail you didn't expect, but you could go back and see exactly why that email was sent, and deduce the bug through the provenance tree. As I said earlier, after writing programs in this style for 3 years, I'm utterly convinced we won't be programming in the future the way we program today. There were versions of Eve where we wrote very complex applications, from webapps to robotics, that didn't even feel like programming -- it felt more like forming a shape out of clay, where the clay in this case is a digital "material". In the end, Eve couldn't get more funding because it wasn't a venture that was really set up to fit into the VC mold (and I'm still not sure how Chris and Rob convinced VCs to fund them in the first place), but I'm absolutely sure the current way of doing things will fade with time. It's going to take a lot more research and a lot more convincing, because there are a lot of people out there that for some reason don't want to see projects like this work, but as someone who went down the rabbit hole and gotten a glimpse of this future, I really just can't fathom how humans could be working with languages held back with so much baggage from the early days of computing in the year 2100 for example. I'm curious though, why you suggest for a language to work like this you have to abandon Turing Completeness. This wasn't my experience at all, and we implemented a Turing Machine in Eve just to prove we were TC (http://incidentalcomplexity.com/2014/12/01/nov/ http://incidentalcomplexity.com/2014/12/01/nov/).

by evv 9y ago

jarmitage 9y ago

To understand why Bret does not open source, you need to watch this talk from his lab's ethnographer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dweVuJBoK6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dweVuJBoK6o Money quote: "In the CDG, prototypes work decidedly against usefulness. That's the mantra, against usefulness. To be very clear, this being against usefulness is not the being against usefulness of artists, who like to do their autonomy. It's also not the grumbling hate of engineers who hate users, stupid users who don't understand their products. The paradoxical reason for the need to avoid usefulness is the experience that usefulness can stop the overall longer process of bootstrapping. Yes, at the end of the process of bootstrapping, products need to be shipped. But before this happened, usefulness is feared, at least for many researchers in the CDG, as a trap. Once you produce useful tools, they reify. Usefulness reacts to present users, and present users are not the future users that the lab is working towards. Useful prototypes stop being pointers of something larger, more long-term than what the prototype achieves. Useful prototypes become a means to an end demand, too much attention, become solutions, and maybe even are in danger of being turned into opportunities." Now whether you think your understanding of open source differs from Bret's is an interesting question. But it seems like his is "throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks is no way to reinvent a civilisation."

lomnakkus 9y ago
A less charitable interpretation might be that many of these ideas are actually not workable -- and never will be -- in the real world where you can't just insert special cases whenever you need to. (I've seen this sooooo often in research code.) It's also not just a question of computing resources. <rant incoming, be warned> I'll use the Mario example from one of his first widely disseminated talks as an example: In the Mario example you see him run time backwards. That's actually reasonably achievable by just recording all previous states or (more plausibly) all state changes and then "just" replaying backwards. Then he runs time forwards again after having changed a setting (or some such). This is, again achievable within limits, see e.g. "rr". The problem comes when he shows a projected future path of Mario. Because of a) Turing Completeness (TC) + the Halting problem, and b) the fact that much code actually interacts with other systems which are not able to just rewind (and/or themselves interact with systems that ...). The only plausible scenario in which this is even remotely possible in practice is if the programs adhere to strict rules about side effects, have built-in "project into the future" (or have no side effects so that we can run them to see what the results are _without affecting anything external_.). That is, it's not about fancy IDEs -- it's about programming languages and turning away from Turing Completeness and/or non-abstract/non-formalized effects. FRP/(React+Flux) sort of work for this if you adhere strictly to purity, but then again break down when it comes to things like "what is the focused element" if the user clicks around when you're replaying. I don't want to be a party-pooper, but good luck changing the programming paradigm of everyone to achieve this vision. For it to work everything has to work in this FRPish way, and that's just never going to happen -- for example, networks (for real-world reasons) cannot behave this way, etc. etc. I WISH we could have everything behave this way, but we can't -- billions of e.g. browser installations which have to have backward-compatible DOM implementations and millions (billions?) of installations of C/C++-based operating systems say so. Now, I'm not against Imagining Things How They Could Be, but if there's mathematical proof that "thing X" is not possible one either needs to explain how you are not doing "thing X" (perhaps not using a TC language, or disallowing non-pure state) or shut up. Brett Victor and many "visionaries" like him are just very bad at stating their fundamental assumptions up front (which is perhaps part of the reason we don't get to see the code, it's probably just simple pure FRP-like code) so that we can evaluate the vision against the assumptions. (Light Table just seemed to assume that the assumptions were plausible and see where that got them. Funded but with very little actual technological advancement to show for it.) ... and also don't get me started on the whole "Kill Math" thing. Ugh. (Sorry about the rantish nature of this -- I should probably just write this up properly somewhere so I could properly flesh it out. I just get tired of this "What A Genius!" and "Well, it would take too much time away from inspiration to actually make the thing!" credulous nonsense.)
- cmontella 9y ago
  I worked with Chris on Eve, which was the project he started after he hit a wall with Light Table, that wall being the limitations of programming languages you outline here. Eve did have strict no side effects requirements, and did have the ability to log and rewind programs. The bulk of our work was in nailing down a good set of semantics, and also in figuring out a good way to present those semantics to users (syntax, UI, etc.). After writing countless programs in this style, which is very different from conventional programming, I have to say the Mario example is a nice demo, but in reality we didn't find time-travel useful in scenarios like that. What was infinitely useful though, was being able to trace the provenance of different values in your program for debugging. Since we kept information around that the compiler usually throws away, we could tell you exactly how a value or UI element was calculated, and give you tools for interacting with that history that just aren't possible in other languages. For instance, you could encounter a bug, pack up the state of your session, send that over to another dev, and he/she would see exactly the environment in which your code was executing. You bring up the good point that not everything is written in this way, and so interacting with external code can be tricky. For example, you might have some code that sends out an email every time the system memory reaches a threshold. Now, you might get an e-mail you didn't expect, but you could go back and see exactly why that email was sent, and deduce the bug through the provenance tree. As I said earlier, after writing programs in this style for 3 years, I'm utterly convinced we won't be programming in the future the way we program today. There were versions of Eve where we wrote very complex applications, from webapps to robotics, that didn't even feel like programming -- it felt more like forming a shape out of clay, where the clay in this case is a digital "material". In the end, Eve couldn't get more funding because it wasn't a venture that was really set up to fit into the VC mold (and I'm still not sure how Chris and Rob convinced VCs to fund them in the first place), but I'm absolutely sure the current way of doing things will fade with time. It's going to take a lot more research and a lot more convincing, because there are a lot of people out there that for some reason don't want to see projects like this work, but as someone who went down the rabbit hole and gotten a glimpse of this future, I really just can't fathom how humans could be working with languages held back with so much baggage from the early days of computing in the year 2100 for example. I'm curious though, why you suggest for a language to work like this you have to abandon Turing Completeness. This wasn't my experience at all, and we implemented a Turing Machine in Eve just to prove we were TC (http://incidentalcomplexity.com/2014/12/01/nov/ http://incidentalcomplexity.com/2014/12/01/nov/).