5 ms·

I find this 'critique' (it's not a critique, it's a takedown) to run against the spirit of Hacker News. Someone built a concept showing how the experience of w

I find this 'critique' (it's not a critique, it's a takedown) to run against the spirit of Hacker News. Someone built a concept showing how the experience of writing code, for their corner of the software ecosystem, could be improved. They found popular support, and they're now setting about to make that concept happen. Congratulations; this is what Hacker News is supposed to be all about. And here's someone summarily piecing apart and nitpicking on that concept (and the details of the demo video) for no apparent reason—there's no feedback or suggestions for improvement, it's just saying "well Eclipse does this and this and this already". I'm not impressed.

shadowmint 15y ago
yes! So this. I agree; Let's see some constructive criticism and ideas for how to improve the LightTable idea, instead of just trying to shoot it down as 'not novel'.
- rweba 15y ago
  Parenthetically, I get rather irritated with people who like to criticize everything as "not novel." Depending on how you look at it almost nothing is completely "novel" ("nothing new under the sun" and all that). What is important is the execution and new wrinkles in the CURRENT iteration - NOT whether something vaguely or even pretty similar was attempted or proposed at some point in the past.
- prospero 15y ago
  There is a valid point lurking in there. The instant evaluation model doesn't play nicely with side-effects. Exactly where side-effects occur can be difficult to determine, there's no simple way to work around this. This is less of a problem in Clojure, thanks to its immutable data structures, but they're not a panacea. I'm also not sure how well this would work in JS and Python, the other languages that Light Table intends to initially target. One possible solution is to have hooks into side-effects: you could display console output or logging alongside the instant evaluation. The real difficulty is network communication: even if you're okay with actually sending requests over the wire, there's an awkward balance between visibility and generality. Something like libpcap [1] is very general, but gives minimal insight into the content. Hooking into a particular HTTP client library gives you a lot more visibility into what's going on, but you'll need to do this every time you want to use a new library. [1] http://www.tcpdump.org/ http://www.tcpdump.org/
  - nightpool 15y ago
    you could mitigate side-effects by running all of lighttable in a VM, assuming no files and creating all the ones you need. Network requests could be intercepted. The key to make this workable would be sensible defaults, allowing you to just open it up and start a new project instantly, and allowing custimization for complicated projects.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      All you need is a VM, a good standard library with mostly functions with minimal side deffects, a way to save all runtime state, and a way to log every change and replay them in case of a crash.
    - prospero 15y ago
      The side-effect could also just be updating a mutable hash-map, which has much of the same issues, and isn't something that you can sandbox.
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        In Smalltalk, this isn't a problem. Our Dictionary instances are mutable. Usually, we realize it while continuing the debugging/editing (they happen at the same time) and we either rewind the stack a little further to get a new instance of the dictionary, or we can easily undo the side effect. It usually happens in less than the amount of time you took to read the previous sentence.
ABS 15y ago
one reason is probably that he is the developer of a "DVR for Java" that "Record entire execution of your Java app" and allows you to "Play it back on any machine". That and the clear lack of experience with anything different than Java is clearly heavily influencing his perspective. And I think there is no malice, it's just biased without realising it
- dibbeke 15y ago
  I smell 'ad hominem'
  - ABS 15y ago
    not really, just that all of us come with a point of view and I think his is made clear by the work he is doing on that project. Never used it, looks interesting and useful for Java. That's where I think the problem is: if you have used only one tool you tend to see everything from that perspective.
    - dibbeke 15y ago
      His argument is on how most concepts in light table are not novel. Branding light table as novel or groundbreaking is therefor incorrect and his post is called for. You seem to attack his argument on his background as a Java developer and not on parts of his argument. As far as I know, this is called an ad hominem attack and in my opinion does not belong on Hacker News. If you can find good counter arguments on his arguments: - Light Table is not novel or groundbreaking since Eclipse has had these kind of features for at least a decade (and several Smalltalk IDE's have had them for several decades), - Light Table's examples are contrived because real world examples do not behave in this way, we'd be having a real discussion.
      - ABS 15y ago
        first: I replied to zacharyvoase's comment and therefore my comment was related to his, don't take it in isolation. There are plenty of other comments here that explain why pdeva1 is coming from the wrong angle therefore I'm not going to repeat them. Chris never mentioned novel or groundbreaking, others have so go and ask them but please before you do that look up the difference between invention and innovation and also remember that novel really means fresh or refreshing (although it's used most of the time to indicate new)
djhworld 15y ago
I don't even see it as a critique, it's more of a "I use Eclipse and I like Eclipse because it is tailored to my needs as a Java developer" article.
- incongruity 15y ago
  Exactly... though it really underscored the idea that the tools we use (and the tools that go with those tools) can shape our worldview. What would have happened if the author took those objections and turned them around, asking instead, what sort of language would need to exist to work ideally with a tool like light table? And, possibly, what sort of problems could more easily be solved if we adapted our language/development model to work with an environment like light table? There may well be no amazing breakthrough here, just as the OP seems to argue, but it certainly seems as though it could (or should) function as an opportunity to rethink our tools and development methods a bit... edit: Also, to the claim that many of the features of light table have been implemented elsewhere already, I'd point out that rarely are good ideas purely new, but successful advances come from sticking many little bits of innovation together in a powerful way
teknover 15y ago
I'd agree. As with all things in life, sometimes even the best of us get into arguments. From semi-colons to jumping the shark because your app is published on multiple platforms, geeks have been known to have their fair share of silly rants. And this article represents one of them. Let's ignore the obvious confirmation bias of the author with their Eclipse background and ask ourselves the pertinent question: even if the author is correct, so what? With open choices, we can choose to use any IDE we feel like. Some, like myself, feel that Eclipse is too cluttered and would prefer a visually streamlined system. Why then devolve yourself into putting down the work of others because you don't like it? There's an absolute difference between a review and the way the author propositioned and explained his rationale as to why Light Table was not for him, explained by the reactions here in HN. Let's be critical, rather than criticise.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

shadowmint 15y ago

yes! So this. I agree; Let's see some constructive criticism and ideas for how to improve the LightTable idea, instead of just trying to shoot it down as 'not novel'.

rweba 15y ago
Parenthetically, I get rather irritated with people who like to criticize everything as "not novel." Depending on how you look at it almost nothing is completely "novel" ("nothing new under the sun" and all that). What is important is the execution and new wrinkles in the CURRENT iteration - NOT whether something vaguely or even pretty similar was attempted or proposed at some point in the past.
prospero 15y ago
There is a valid point lurking in there. The instant evaluation model doesn't play nicely with side-effects. Exactly where side-effects occur can be difficult to determine, there's no simple way to work around this. This is less of a problem in Clojure, thanks to its immutable data structures, but they're not a panacea. I'm also not sure how well this would work in JS and Python, the other languages that Light Table intends to initially target. One possible solution is to have hooks into side-effects: you could display console output or logging alongside the instant evaluation. The real difficulty is network communication: even if you're okay with actually sending requests over the wire, there's an awkward balance between visibility and generality. Something like libpcap [1] is very general, but gives minimal insight into the content. Hooking into a particular HTTP client library gives you a lot more visibility into what's going on, but you'll need to do this every time you want to use a new library. [1] http://www.tcpdump.org/ http://www.tcpdump.org/
- nightpool 15y ago
  you could mitigate side-effects by running all of lighttable in a VM, assuming no files and creating all the ones you need. Network requests could be intercepted. The key to make this workable would be sensible defaults, allowing you to just open it up and start a new project instantly, and allowing custimization for complicated projects.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    All you need is a VM, a good standard library with mostly functions with minimal side deffects, a way to save all runtime state, and a way to log every change and replay them in case of a crash.
  - prospero 15y ago
    The side-effect could also just be updating a mutable hash-map, which has much of the same issues, and isn't something that you can sandbox.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      In Smalltalk, this isn't a problem. Our Dictionary instances are mutable. Usually, we realize it while continuing the debugging/editing (they happen at the same time) and we either rewind the stack a little further to get a new instance of the dictionary, or we can easily undo the side effect. It usually happens in less than the amount of time you took to read the previous sentence.

ABS 15y ago

one reason is probably that he is the developer of a "DVR for Java" that "Record entire execution of your Java app" and allows you to "Play it back on any machine". That and the clear lack of experience with anything different than Java is clearly heavily influencing his perspective. And I think there is no malice, it's just biased without realising it

dibbeke 15y ago
I smell 'ad hominem'
- ABS 15y ago
  not really, just that all of us come with a point of view and I think his is made clear by the work he is doing on that project. Never used it, looks interesting and useful for Java. That's where I think the problem is: if you have used only one tool you tend to see everything from that perspective.
  - dibbeke 15y ago
    His argument is on how most concepts in light table are not novel. Branding light table as novel or groundbreaking is therefor incorrect and his post is called for. You seem to attack his argument on his background as a Java developer and not on parts of his argument. As far as I know, this is called an ad hominem attack and in my opinion does not belong on Hacker News. If you can find good counter arguments on his arguments: - Light Table is not novel or groundbreaking since Eclipse has had these kind of features for at least a decade (and several Smalltalk IDE's have had them for several decades), - Light Table's examples are contrived because real world examples do not behave in this way, we'd be having a real discussion.
    - ABS 15y ago
      first: I replied to zacharyvoase's comment and therefore my comment was related to his, don't take it in isolation. There are plenty of other comments here that explain why pdeva1 is coming from the wrong angle therefore I'm not going to repeat them. Chris never mentioned novel or groundbreaking, others have so go and ask them but please before you do that look up the difference between invention and innovation and also remember that novel really means fresh or refreshing (although it's used most of the time to indicate new)

djhworld 15y ago

I don't even see it as a critique, it's more of a "I use Eclipse and I like Eclipse because it is tailored to my needs as a Java developer" article.

incongruity 15y ago
Exactly... though it really underscored the idea that the tools we use (and the tools that go with those tools) can shape our worldview. What would have happened if the author took those objections and turned them around, asking instead, what sort of language would need to exist to work ideally with a tool like light table? And, possibly, what sort of problems could more easily be solved if we adapted our language/development model to work with an environment like light table? There may well be no amazing breakthrough here, just as the OP seems to argue, but it certainly seems as though it could (or should) function as an opportunity to rethink our tools and development methods a bit... edit: Also, to the claim that many of the features of light table have been implemented elsewhere already, I'd point out that rarely are good ideas purely new, but successful advances come from sticking many little bits of innovation together in a powerful way

teknover 15y ago

I'd agree. As with all things in life, sometimes even the best of us get into arguments. From semi-colons to jumping the shark because your app is published on multiple platforms, geeks have been known to have their fair share of silly rants. And this article represents one of them. Let's ignore the obvious confirmation bias of the author with their Eclipse background and ask ourselves the pertinent question: even if the author is correct, so what? With open choices, we can choose to use any IDE we feel like. Some, like myself, feel that Eclipse is too cluttered and would prefer a visually streamlined system. Why then devolve yourself into putting down the work of others because you don't like it? There's an absolute difference between a review and the way the author propositioned and explained his rationale as to why Light Table was not for him, explained by the reactions here in HN. Let's be critical, rather than criticise.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]