5 ms·

Serialized bytestreams do compose better than graphical applications. But that is setting a very low bar. For example, allowing passing around dicts/maps/json (

Serialized bytestreams do compose better than graphical applications. But that is setting a very low bar. For example, allowing passing around dicts/maps/json (and possibly other data structures) would already be a massive improvement. You know what might be even better — passing around objects you could interact with by passing messages (gasp! cue, Alan Kay). While posix and streams are nice (if you squint, files look like a poor man’s version of objects imposed on top of bytestreams), it’s about time we moved on to better things, and not lose sight of the bigger picture.

fao_ 6y ago
Yeah, but that makes every single file an object. Then you need plugins to deal with plain text objects, plugins to deal with every single type of object and their versions. Objects aren't human readable and if they get corrupted the object's format is very difficult to recover, you need an intimate knowledge of both the specific format used (of which there might be thousands of variations). Plaintext, however, if that gets corrupted it's human-readable. The data might not be more compact (Although TSV files tend to come out equal), but it's more robust against those kinds of changes. Have you ever examined a protobuf file without knowing what the protobuf structure is? I have, as part of various reverse-engineering I did. It's a nightmare, and without documentation (That's frequently out of date or nonexistent) it's almost impossible to figure out what the data actually is, and you never know if you've got it right. Even having part of the recovered data, I can't figure out what the rest of it is.
- ssivark 6y ago
  But that seems like just ignoring the problem, like an ostrich shoving one’s head into the sand! > Have you ever examined a protobuf file without knowing what the protobuf structure is? Are you referring to an ASCII serialization or a binary serialization? In a typical scenario, your application needed structured data (hence protobuf), and then you serialized your protobuf into an ASCII bytestream... so how are you ever worse off with a protobuf compared to a text file, provided you make a good choice of serialization scheme? Clearly text files cannot carry enough structure, so we have to build more layers of scaffolding on top? Ultimately files are serialized on to disk as bits, and “ASCII” and “posix” are just “plugins” to be used when reading bitstreams (serialized file objects). Plaintext is not readable if the bits get corrupted or byte boundaries/endianness gets shifted! To have the same amount of of robustness with higher-order structures I imagine all one needs is a well-defined de/serialization protocol which would allow you to load new objects into memory? Am I missing something?
- Firadeoclus 6y ago
  You could solve that problem with a system which mandated that structured data always come with a reference to a schema. (And where files as blobs disconnected from everything else only exist as an edge case for compatibility with other systems).
flukus 6y ago
> For example, allowing passing around dicts/maps/json (and possibly other data structures) would already be a massive improvement. It is allowed, you can pass around data in whatever encoding you desire. Not many do though because text is so useful for humans. > You know what might be even better — passing around objects you could interact with by passing messages (gasp! cue, Alan Kay) That's a daemon/service and basic unix utils make it easy to create, a shell script reading from a FIFO file fits this definition of object, the message passing is writing to the file and the object is passed around with the filename. Unix is basically a fulfillment of Alan Kay's idea of OO.
cobalt 6y ago
try powershell, its on linux too
- Koshkin 6y ago
  Indeed, if it wasn’t for its reliance on .NET, it looks like PowerShell could be a massive improvement over Unix shell.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Some consider not relying on C a massive improvement.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    There are projects like NuShell that are similar to PowerShell but don't rely on .NET.
    - majkinetor 6y ago
      There is nothing like PowerShell.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        I agree that all of them so far seem to be lacking in many ways compared to PowerShell, but saying they are "nothing like" PowerShell isn't a very accurate statement in my opinion.
        majkinetor 6y ago
        No, that is totally accurate - there is nothing even close to PowerShell. You were inaccurate on the other hand - what is similar to PowerShell ?
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
boomlinde 6y ago
> For example, allowing passing around dicts/maps/json (and possibly other data structures) would already be a massive improvement. Well, it is allowed. You can of course serialize some data into a structured format and pass it over a byte stream in POSIX to this end, and I think this is appropriate in some cases in terms of user convenience. Then you can use tools like xpath or jq to select subfields or mangle. > (if you squint, files look like a poor man’s version of objects imposed on top of bytestreams) If all you have is a hammer...

fao_ 6y ago

Yeah, but that makes every single file an object. Then you need plugins to deal with plain text objects, plugins to deal with every single type of object and their versions. Objects aren't human readable and if they get corrupted the object's format is very difficult to recover, you need an intimate knowledge of both the specific format used (of which there might be thousands of variations). Plaintext, however, if that gets corrupted it's human-readable. The data might not be more compact (Although TSV files tend to come out equal), but it's more robust against those kinds of changes. Have you ever examined a protobuf file without knowing what the protobuf structure is? I have, as part of various reverse-engineering I did. It's a nightmare, and without documentation (That's frequently out of date or nonexistent) it's almost impossible to figure out what the data actually is, and you never know if you've got it right. Even having part of the recovered data, I can't figure out what the rest of it is.

ssivark 6y ago
But that seems like just ignoring the problem, like an ostrich shoving one’s head into the sand! > Have you ever examined a protobuf file without knowing what the protobuf structure is? Are you referring to an ASCII serialization or a binary serialization? In a typical scenario, your application needed structured data (hence protobuf), and then you serialized your protobuf into an ASCII bytestream... so how are you ever worse off with a protobuf compared to a text file, provided you make a good choice of serialization scheme? Clearly text files cannot carry enough structure, so we have to build more layers of scaffolding on top? Ultimately files are serialized on to disk as bits, and “ASCII” and “posix” are just “plugins” to be used when reading bitstreams (serialized file objects). Plaintext is not readable if the bits get corrupted or byte boundaries/endianness gets shifted! To have the same amount of of robustness with higher-order structures I imagine all one needs is a well-defined de/serialization protocol which would allow you to load new objects into memory? Am I missing something?
Firadeoclus 6y ago
You could solve that problem with a system which mandated that structured data always come with a reference to a schema. (And where files as blobs disconnected from everything else only exist as an edge case for compatibility with other systems).

flukus 6y ago

> For example, allowing passing around dicts/maps/json (and possibly other data structures) would already be a massive improvement. It is allowed, you can pass around data in whatever encoding you desire. Not many do though because text is so useful for humans. > You know what might be even better — passing around objects you could interact with by passing messages (gasp! cue, Alan Kay) That's a daemon/service and basic unix utils make it easy to create, a shell script reading from a FIFO file fits this definition of object, the message passing is writing to the file and the object is passed around with the filename. Unix is basically a fulfillment of Alan Kay's idea of OO.

cobalt 6y ago

try powershell, its on linux too

Koshkin 6y ago
Indeed, if it wasn’t for its reliance on .NET, it looks like PowerShell could be a massive improvement over Unix shell.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Some consider not relying on C a massive improvement.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  There are projects like NuShell that are similar to PowerShell but don't rely on .NET.
  - majkinetor 6y ago
    There is nothing like PowerShell.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      I agree that all of them so far seem to be lacking in many ways compared to PowerShell, but saying they are "nothing like" PowerShell isn't a very accurate statement in my opinion.
      - majkinetor 6y ago
        No, that is totally accurate - there is nothing even close to PowerShell. You were inaccurate on the other hand - what is similar to PowerShell ?
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

boomlinde 6y ago

> For example, allowing passing around dicts/maps/json (and possibly other data structures) would already be a massive improvement. Well, it is allowed. You can of course serialize some data into a structured format and pass it over a byte stream in POSIX to this end, and I think this is appropriate in some cases in terms of user convenience. Then you can use tools like xpath or jq to select subfields or mangle. > (if you squint, files look like a poor man’s version of objects imposed on top of bytestreams) If all you have is a hammer...