4 ms·

> Not having a file system raises the question of what data should be persistent and what shouldn't. But on a modern computer, it is feasible to just treat all

> Not having a file system raises the question of what data should be persistent and what shouldn't. But on a modern computer, it is feasible to just treat all data as persistent (maybe excluding the youngest GC generation). I'd be concerned about the UX issue of ephemeral vs. permanent changes here. I doubt that files and save/revert operations are the best we can do, but I think there's a lot of value in the fact that some pattern for it exists that's common to most applications. Perhaps this has already been tackled in some system that doesn't natively use the concept of disk files. It could be as simple as having a pattern to assign names to persistent copies of objects, or something more sophisticated like assigning names to points in an undo tree that are then transparently converted into self-contained objects when the tree is pruned.

twic 8y ago
If you squint a bit, the web is a bit like a giant multi-user operating system. We certainly save a lot of data in it, and expect it to persist. But we don't generally do that using a file metaphor, and i don't hear people crying out for one. My comments on HN don't look like files to me. Nor do my tasting notes on Untappd, my shitposts on various Slacks, my projects on GitHub (which contain files, but aren't files themselves), etc. So we already have an existence proof for an operating system without files. Now, whether the web would be better if everything was more file-like is an open question. That would be very interesting, and probably closer to the Nelsonian ideal.
- krapp 8y ago
  Except, everything you mentioned are still one or multiple files sitting on a remote server. That it isn't necessarily presented as such through a particular web app's interface isn't relevant... under the hood, it's still just files on an operating system designed around that concept. Even data in a database is also data in a database file. I mean, there's a reason URLs look like directory paths... that's what they were originally meant to be, remote paths to files.
  - twic 8y ago
    > Except, everything you mentioned are still one or multiple files sitting on a remote server. Yes, in the same way that this LISP OS's storage is still extents of bytes on a disk indexed by a lookup structure, ie files. > That it isn't necessarily presented as such through a particular web app's interface isn't relevant. Not only is it relevant, it is the entire point of the comment.
- 0xcde4c3db 8y ago
  I'm specifically not suggesting that systems necessarily need a file metaphor. I'm concerned about what happens when every app has its own idiosyncratic UX pattern for saving/committing your work. I know people who have lost work in web apps (e.g. issue tracking systems) because it's not obvious when their changes are actually committed as opposed to sitting in memory in their browser, and people who have been bitten by weird interactions between auto-save and undo in IDEs.

twic 8y ago

If you squint a bit, the web is a bit like a giant multi-user operating system. We certainly save a lot of data in it, and expect it to persist. But we don't generally do that using a file metaphor, and i don't hear people crying out for one. My comments on HN don't look like files to me. Nor do my tasting notes on Untappd, my shitposts on various Slacks, my projects on GitHub (which contain files, but aren't files themselves), etc. So we already have an existence proof for an operating system without files. Now, whether the web would be better if everything was more file-like is an open question. That would be very interesting, and probably closer to the Nelsonian ideal.

krapp 8y ago
Except, everything you mentioned are still one or multiple files sitting on a remote server. That it isn't necessarily presented as such through a particular web app's interface isn't relevant... under the hood, it's still just files on an operating system designed around that concept. Even data in a database is also data in a database file. I mean, there's a reason URLs look like directory paths... that's what they were originally meant to be, remote paths to files.
- twic 8y ago
  > Except, everything you mentioned are still one or multiple files sitting on a remote server. Yes, in the same way that this LISP OS's storage is still extents of bytes on a disk indexed by a lookup structure, ie files. > That it isn't necessarily presented as such through a particular web app's interface isn't relevant. Not only is it relevant, it is the entire point of the comment.
0xcde4c3db 8y ago
I'm specifically not suggesting that systems necessarily need a file metaphor. I'm concerned about what happens when every app has its own idiosyncratic UX pattern for saving/committing your work. I know people who have lost work in web apps (e.g. issue tracking systems) because it's not obvious when their changes are actually committed as opposed to sitting in memory in their browser, and people who have been bitten by weird interactions between auto-save and undo in IDEs.