5 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06x8Wf2r2Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06x8Wf2r2Mc - at 10:52 Simon Peyton-Jones talks about life of programming languages.

by thesz 4y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06x8Wf2r2Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06x8Wf2r2Mc - at 10:52 Simon Peyton-Jones talks about life of programming languages. Ruby, having at least million users around the world, is in immortal category. What fascinated me in the original post is "...data model on the principles of the Value Object, introduced by Martin Fowler." I mentioned Haskell because there is a long, long history of the use of immutable objects in computing science, dating back to Church and Turing's communication. The immutability is what differentiates lambda calculus and Turing machine. That is why I remembered Haskell and the video above. Yet, it is "introduced by Martin Fowler," for some reasons. This is very sad.

revskill 4y ago
Those Java Enterprisey guys as Martin Folwer is the reason i stop caring about Enterprise. Shitty stuffs get complicated for no reason.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  People love to bash Java for what has been typical enterprise architectures since large corporations have used computers. Or do people think that before Java we didn't have any architecture astronauts on large corporations?!?
  - revskill 4y ago
    Hacking on Java frameworks is mostly a pain. Both from IDE tooling (too much RAM, configuration fighting,...) to the documentation. Basically it made simple problems harder for just "JAVA" reason. For comparison, i've spent many months to hack on Java framework in a company before to deliver a hackable feature. By the same time, i also released 3 production applications from scratch with Rails. The issue is not Java is impossible to have such productivity, it's the mindset, the culture issues from Enterprisey people.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Again, that culture was already there decades before Java came to be, COM, SOM, CORBA, Taligent, ER model, Booch method, Rational Unified Process, Structured systems analysis and design method. Yes, I am an old dog at this game. Had Ruby and Rails been embraced at the same scale, you can bet there would exist a comparable flavour of Ruby EE.
      - revskill 4y ago
        As i said, it's about the mindset that matters (rather than throwing me a bunch of design patterns). If you're at work and want to get shit done fast for the salary reason: There's no reason NOT to use Rails. If you want to go enterprise, use something lightweight and modular, composable instead. Throwing a bunch of inheritable BeanClass serves no purpose on the job. UNIX philosophy came long ago, before JAVA.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        UNIX philosophy is cargo cult from a book worshiped by FOSS folks. CORBA was born on UNIX, original implementation targeted C, C++ and Smalltalk. Java was years away to be created, again by a UNIX company. Java EE, was reborn from an canceled Objective-C project created by Sun and NeXTSTEP, again two UNIX companies.
        revskill 4y ago
        No, unix philosophy is what make things work together as i see. A big mess of inheritance tree doesn't solve large scale problem. That's the misunderstanding of "large scale engineering" that i've seen from most companies. You don't solve problem by solving it. You solve it by decomposing it, and compose again.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        The technical architects, solution architects and business analysists couldn't care less about what a worshiped book says about the UNIX philosophy. On the enterprise mines, the minions do what they say.
  - thesz 4y ago
    Okay, I'll bite. Java could be a much nicer language with much less allowance for architectural space programs. Type classes were introduced into Haskell as early as 1988-1989. At 1991 you could have programming in language with parametric polymorphism, type inference and principled (albeit called ad-hoc) overloading, there was at least one. The ST monad, one of the first effect-containing abstractions, was introduced as early as 1992 - I think it was close to introduction of IO monad. So, at the time Java was introduced in 1995, it could have all these nice properties which greatly simplify programming and make architectures easier to understand and more future-proof (Haskell's solution to an Expression Problem [1] is one of the simplest, it uses what was available in 1995, more or less). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem Thus, we could have a programming language that makes architecture rocket launch much harder. But we did not. The slogan was "write once, run anywhere" without any regards on how much is needed to be written or how to safely compose what is written.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      I guess you never seen Haskell code in production with endless GHC feature flags...
      - thesz 4y ago
        I saw, of course. I use Haskell professionally for 15 years now. These feature flags are not "architecture space odyssey," though. Usually they reduce boilerplate, often significantly. They are also artifact of Haskell being "research language," as mentioned in video above.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Programming languages exist primarily to provide pretty paths for certain kinds of development, which is to say by the structure of the language they make certain kinds of solutions more natural to the developer, while making others more painful. Java's pretty path is large, object oriented towers of classes, with state scattered rough-shod throughout the application. To be fair, there has been some effort to ease the insanity. Record classes, lambdas, and the like lessen the pain of trying to write Java against its original orthodoxy. But before that, a simple "sort list of lists by first value" method involved making a class available in the current scope that implemented Comparator<List<X>> which contains a method "compare". As opposed to "sortby (comparing fst) list_o_lists"
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Languages are orthogonal to the desires of technical architects, solution architects and business analysts, that control the helm of enterprise shops. There was no Java when GoF book came out, CORBA and DCOM were used all over the place, SOAP was initially driven by Microsoft and its COM/.NET group (see Don Box), when enterprise architects get FP into the enterprise, scalaz happens.

by thesz 4y ago

revskill 4y ago

Those Java Enterprisey guys as Martin Folwer is the reason i stop caring about Enterprise. Shitty stuffs get complicated for no reason.

pjmlp 4y ago
People love to bash Java for what has been typical enterprise architectures since large corporations have used computers. Or do people think that before Java we didn't have any architecture astronauts on large corporations?!?
- revskill 4y ago
  Hacking on Java frameworks is mostly a pain. Both from IDE tooling (too much RAM, configuration fighting,...) to the documentation. Basically it made simple problems harder for just "JAVA" reason. For comparison, i've spent many months to hack on Java framework in a company before to deliver a hackable feature. By the same time, i also released 3 production applications from scratch with Rails. The issue is not Java is impossible to have such productivity, it's the mindset, the culture issues from Enterprisey people.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Again, that culture was already there decades before Java came to be, COM, SOM, CORBA, Taligent, ER model, Booch method, Rational Unified Process, Structured systems analysis and design method. Yes, I am an old dog at this game. Had Ruby and Rails been embraced at the same scale, you can bet there would exist a comparable flavour of Ruby EE.
    - revskill 4y ago
      As i said, it's about the mindset that matters (rather than throwing me a bunch of design patterns). If you're at work and want to get shit done fast for the salary reason: There's no reason NOT to use Rails. If you want to go enterprise, use something lightweight and modular, composable instead. Throwing a bunch of inheritable BeanClass serves no purpose on the job. UNIX philosophy came long ago, before JAVA.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        UNIX philosophy is cargo cult from a book worshiped by FOSS folks. CORBA was born on UNIX, original implementation targeted C, C++ and Smalltalk. Java was years away to be created, again by a UNIX company. Java EE, was reborn from an canceled Objective-C project created by Sun and NeXTSTEP, again two UNIX companies.
        revskill 4y ago
        No, unix philosophy is what make things work together as i see. A big mess of inheritance tree doesn't solve large scale problem. That's the misunderstanding of "large scale engineering" that i've seen from most companies. You don't solve problem by solving it. You solve it by decomposing it, and compose again.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        The technical architects, solution architects and business analysists couldn't care less about what a worshiped book says about the UNIX philosophy. On the enterprise mines, the minions do what they say.
- thesz 4y ago
  Okay, I'll bite. Java could be a much nicer language with much less allowance for architectural space programs. Type classes were introduced into Haskell as early as 1988-1989. At 1991 you could have programming in language with parametric polymorphism, type inference and principled (albeit called ad-hoc) overloading, there was at least one. The ST monad, one of the first effect-containing abstractions, was introduced as early as 1992 - I think it was close to introduction of IO monad. So, at the time Java was introduced in 1995, it could have all these nice properties which greatly simplify programming and make architectures easier to understand and more future-proof (Haskell's solution to an Expression Problem [1] is one of the simplest, it uses what was available in 1995, more or less). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem Thus, we could have a programming language that makes architecture rocket launch much harder. But we did not. The slogan was "write once, run anywhere" without any regards on how much is needed to be written or how to safely compose what is written.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    I guess you never seen Haskell code in production with endless GHC feature flags...
    - thesz 4y ago
      I saw, of course. I use Haskell professionally for 15 years now. These feature flags are not "architecture space odyssey," though. Usually they reduce boilerplate, often significantly. They are also artifact of Haskell being "research language," as mentioned in video above.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  Programming languages exist primarily to provide pretty paths for certain kinds of development, which is to say by the structure of the language they make certain kinds of solutions more natural to the developer, while making others more painful. Java's pretty path is large, object oriented towers of classes, with state scattered rough-shod throughout the application. To be fair, there has been some effort to ease the insanity. Record classes, lambdas, and the like lessen the pain of trying to write Java against its original orthodoxy. But before that, a simple "sort list of lists by first value" method involved making a class available in the current scope that implemented Comparator<List<X>> which contains a method "compare". As opposed to "sortby (comparing fst) list_o_lists"
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Languages are orthogonal to the desires of technical architects, solution architects and business analysts, that control the helm of enterprise shops. There was no Java when GoF book came out, CORBA and DCOM were used all over the place, SOAP was initially driven by Microsoft and its COM/.NET group (see Don Box), when enterprise architects get FP into the enterprise, scalaz happens.