5 ms·

well today i just learned something very important, thanks! How can I find more wisdom like this?

unixhero 6y ago
I wish I didn't have to be so meme'ey, but to answer your question; By reading more Hacker News ;-)
BatteryMountain 6y ago
Stub your toe a few times until enlightenment forces its way into your field of view. Seriously though, if you want learn a different way of building applications where loads of these things pop up, look into Actor Model. Even if you are not going to use Actor Model, reading up about it will teach you a lot about "realtime" applications... My main epiphany was that realtime applications do not exist. Rather they cannot exist. Because our reality is not realtime (or our perception of it is always delayed because our brains/awareness is slow) - we can never truly capture the present moment. Data we see is always in the past. Reality is eventually consistent (from our perspective). All things in our reality runs concurrently, stateless and in their own little time bubble. You can also read up on the concepts behind Event Sourcing. Anyway, it is a huge rabbit hole, but reading up on the ideas behind Actor Model might just blow your mind. I'm convinced it will make a comeback because it is the natural way our reality works and Actor Model mimics it the closest, and it will also work better for multi-core cpu's. For non-tech reading, try The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. Then try to reflect on (relational databases) + (actor model) + (event sourcing) + (power of now) + (brain in a vat philosophy) + (try to to figure out at what speed the universe "renders", how fast our brains can think, how much delay there is, what limits do our body's sensors limits impose) + (try to figure out how closely Object Oriented programming can mimic reality (hint: all programming are tiny simulations that try to mimic some tiny part of our reality)) + (read up on the history of time keeping and the huge rabbit hole of calendars, and how most programming languages attempts to handle time (badly for the most part, it's a legit rabbit hole on it's own)). After a year or two of hard reading, reflection and teachings (and wrecking your head), you may have good insight into the nature of programming and the fallacies of trying to build realtime systems, or trying to mimic our reality in a computer in general. It is insanely complex, we as programmers merely touch a grain of sand of the beach of complexity. We have no idea how simple our most convoluted systems are in the face of nature, yet we convince ourselves that we KNOW how things work and that we are in control at all times. Good luck!
- unixhero 6y ago
  Thank you, this will blow my mind. I will take this path. Real time systems is the field which is where I want to be.
  - BatteryMountain 6y ago
    To add to this part: "My main epiphany was that realtime applications do not exist. Rather they cannot exist." Most of us think our applications are realtime (never mind the OS schduling cpu time for your code, so inherently not realtime) but this is only because it behaves as expected, while there is not too much load nor too much data. The moment you start having significant computational load or start having too much data (aka the cpu, memory or storage starts choking), or when you start to split data apart (aka distributed applications) then the problems with "realtime" applications starts to become obvious. If something goes wrong, to fix the immediate problems would be to retry/rerun the simulation, but that might result in duplicating your intents, which results in the simulation and its state as invalid. Then you either (hopefully) have some mechanism to de-duplicate whatever happened more than once or you have to start you simulation from scratch after fixing the data manually. Or just design the core of the system with Idempotency in-mind from the start so you have a good way to handle such scenarios. Embrace that most things can/should be handled in a eventually-consistent way. Very few things in life has to happen RIGHT NOW (good luck with that). An interesting spin on realtime systems are computer games, where we refresh a view of the simulation every few milliseconds (aka 60fps). Every frame gets rendered based on the inputs (keyboard/mouse)from just-after the previous frame. So in effect, the current frame being drawn is just a reaction based on previous inputs. So let me ask you this: in a game engine like this, where would you assign the value of "now"? Right after the previous frame? When capturing user input? When rendering the new frame starts? When showing the new frame but before capturing the new inputs? Where is reality's "now" moment in a computer game? Let's ignore the delays between keyboard/mouse input and drawing from CPU/GPU to the physical screen and lets assume this is a single player FPS and not a multiplayer turn-based game. And lets ignore sound processing too - just think of the simplest of game loops - should we consider them as realtime? Ponder that.
    - 6y ago

I wish I didn't have to be so meme'ey, but to answer your question; By reading more Hacker News ;-)

Stub your toe a few times until enlightenment forces its way into your field of view. Seriously though, if you want learn a different way of building applications where loads of these things pop up, look into Actor Model. Even if you are not going to use Actor Model, reading up about it will teach you a lot about "realtime" applications... My main epiphany was that realtime applications do not exist. Rather they cannot exist. Because our reality is not realtime (or our perception of it is always delayed because our brains/awareness is slow) - we can never truly capture the present moment. Data we see is always in the past. Reality is eventually consistent (from our perspective). All things in our reality runs concurrently, stateless and in their own little time bubble. You can also read up on the concepts behind Event Sourcing. Anyway, it is a huge rabbit hole, but reading up on the ideas behind Actor Model might just blow your mind. I'm convinced it will make a comeback because it is the natural way our reality works and Actor Model mimics it the closest, and it will also work better for multi-core cpu's. For non-tech reading, try The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. Then try to reflect on (relational databases) + (actor model) + (event sourcing) + (power of now) + (brain in a vat philosophy) + (try to to figure out at what speed the universe "renders", how fast our brains can think, how much delay there is, what limits do our body's sensors limits impose) + (try to figure out how closely Object Oriented programming can mimic reality (hint: all programming are tiny simulations that try to mimic some tiny part of our reality)) + (read up on the history of time keeping and the huge rabbit hole of calendars, and how most programming languages attempts to handle time (badly for the most part, it's a legit rabbit hole on it's own)). After a year or two of hard reading, reflection and teachings (and wrecking your head), you may have good insight into the nature of programming and the fallacies of trying to build realtime systems, or trying to mimic our reality in a computer in general. It is insanely complex, we as programmers merely touch a grain of sand of the beach of complexity. We have no idea how simple our most convoluted systems are in the face of nature, yet we convince ourselves that we KNOW how things work and that we are in control at all times. Good luck!

unixhero 6y ago
Thank you, this will blow my mind. I will take this path. Real time systems is the field which is where I want to be.
- BatteryMountain 6y ago
  To add to this part: "My main epiphany was that realtime applications do not exist. Rather they cannot exist." Most of us think our applications are realtime (never mind the OS schduling cpu time for your code, so inherently not realtime) but this is only because it behaves as expected, while there is not too much load nor too much data. The moment you start having significant computational load or start having too much data (aka the cpu, memory or storage starts choking), or when you start to split data apart (aka distributed applications) then the problems with "realtime" applications starts to become obvious. If something goes wrong, to fix the immediate problems would be to retry/rerun the simulation, but that might result in duplicating your intents, which results in the simulation and its state as invalid. Then you either (hopefully) have some mechanism to de-duplicate whatever happened more than once or you have to start you simulation from scratch after fixing the data manually. Or just design the core of the system with Idempotency in-mind from the start so you have a good way to handle such scenarios. Embrace that most things can/should be handled in a eventually-consistent way. Very few things in life has to happen RIGHT NOW (good luck with that). An interesting spin on realtime systems are computer games, where we refresh a view of the simulation every few milliseconds (aka 60fps). Every frame gets rendered based on the inputs (keyboard/mouse)from just-after the previous frame. So in effect, the current frame being drawn is just a reaction based on previous inputs. So let me ask you this: in a game engine like this, where would you assign the value of "now"? Right after the previous frame? When capturing user input? When rendering the new frame starts? When showing the new frame but before capturing the new inputs? Where is reality's "now" moment in a computer game? Let's ignore the delays between keyboard/mouse input and drawing from CPU/GPU to the physical screen and lets assume this is a single player FPS and not a multiplayer turn-based game. And lets ignore sound processing too - just think of the simplest of game loops - should we consider them as realtime? Ponder that.
  - 6y ago