4 ms·

Remote pretending to be local is asking for failure. But local can trivially conform to abstractions designed for the remote case. Languages like Erlang and E s

Remote pretending to be local is asking for failure. But local can trivially conform to abstractions designed for the remote case. Languages like Erlang and E showed that programming that way doesn't have to suck. When I read this paper (it's been a long time) it seemed to overlook this angle on the problem.

mistrial9 4y ago
hmm maybe? the repeated references to Object-Oriented structures means partly, that 'code + data + an interface' exists systematically, as the basis for interaction. What you do with that to expose to the human mind is quite flexible (with costs).
zozbot234 4y ago
"Local conforming to the remote case" will be slow and have a lot of overhead, unless the "remote" abstractions are carefully designed to scale down efficiently to a single node. You can view the SSI (single system image) approach as trying to do exactly that.
o_nate 4y ago
The paper specifically discusses that option (making local conform to remote abstractions) but finds it inadequate for various reasons. Stated succinctly: "Rather than encouraging the production of distributed applications, such a model will discourage its own adoption by making all object-based computing more difficult."
- abecedarius 4y ago
  Thanks, you're right and my memory was fuzzy. But the strong claims like that in the paper are about trying to completely erase the local/remote difference, which neither E nor Erlang did. Instead they reduced the pain in a way that this paper leaves an impression is not worth pursuing: > Rather than using those resources in attempts to paper over the differences between the two kinds of computing, resources can be directed at improving the performance and reliability of each. > ... it is a mistake to attempt to construct a system that is “objects all the way down” if one understands the goal as a distributed system constructed of the same kind of objects all the way down. (E.g. in E the objects are the same kind; it's the references to objects that have two kinds.)

mistrial9 4y ago

hmm maybe? the repeated references to Object-Oriented structures means partly, that 'code + data + an interface' exists systematically, as the basis for interaction. What you do with that to expose to the human mind is quite flexible (with costs).

zozbot234 4y ago

"Local conforming to the remote case" will be slow and have a lot of overhead, unless the "remote" abstractions are carefully designed to scale down efficiently to a single node. You can view the SSI (single system image) approach as trying to do exactly that.

o_nate 4y ago

The paper specifically discusses that option (making local conform to remote abstractions) but finds it inadequate for various reasons. Stated succinctly: "Rather than encouraging the production of distributed applications, such a model will discourage its own adoption by making all object-based computing more difficult."

abecedarius 4y ago
Thanks, you're right and my memory was fuzzy. But the strong claims like that in the paper are about trying to completely erase the local/remote difference, which neither E nor Erlang did. Instead they reduced the pain in a way that this paper leaves an impression is not worth pursuing: > Rather than using those resources in attempts to paper over the differences between the two kinds of computing, resources can be directed at improving the performance and reliability of each. > ... it is a mistake to attempt to construct a system that is “objects all the way down” if one understands the goal as a distributed system constructed of the same kind of objects all the way down. (E.g. in E the objects are the same kind; it's the references to objects that have two kinds.)