3 ms·
I think there were a lot of great ideas presented in these small examples. 1. Explicitly marking non-local _data_ vs. in-memory. A very cool idea -- languages
by lidatong 5y ago
I think there were a lot of great ideas presented in these small examples.
1. Explicitly marking non-local _data_ vs. in-memory. A very cool idea -- languages and libraries I've used all seem to try to make this transparent (unsuccessfully, as indicated by the random serialization errors you get)
2. Making the noise around serialization and RPC transparent to the user
3. Bring the code to the data, not the data to the code
4. Immutability, FP, and I like the syntax -- no coincidence in its similarities to Haskell and Scala, I'm sure :)
These are all pain points in a lot of existing "big data systems" I've used, where they either solve the problem half-baked or don't address at all. I'm excited to see where this project goes!
- zomglings 5y agoYour use of the word transparent confused me a little. It seems you are using it in the sense that details that are being made transparent are being hidden from the user. But if you make something transparent to the user, it could also mean that you are directly exposing that thing to the user. (Right? I could be wrong about this.) Just confused me and thought it might be useful to you to know that. Not trying to be an asshole.
- luckysid 5y agoI think in a technical context, it always has the meaning OP is talking about. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(human%E2%80%93computer_interaction) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(human%E2%80%93co.... I've mostly seen research papers use transparency with this meaning.
- lidatong 5y agoNo offense taken - re-reading what I wrote, you make a fair point. The wiki page luckysid linked calls this out: > Confusingly, the term refers to overall invisibility of the component, it does not refer to visibility of component's internals Indeed, perhaps "invisible" would have been a better word choice.