3 ms·
Sure, call them byte streams or blobs, that's fine too. I'm not disagreeing, but the point I wanted to make was that recently, people seem to have gotten the id
by isoprophlex 2y ago
Sure, call them byte streams or blobs, that's fine too. I'm not disagreeing, but the point I wanted to make was that recently, people seem to have gotten the idea that their objects are semi-magical things locked into some app or some cloud service. Which is fine by the SaaS providers, or course. But it doesn't really foster understanding of the world around you.
Like kids thinking corn comes from the corn factory.
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y agoWhen I was a kid I used to think that pasta came from a pasta factory.
- defrost 2y agoWhen we were children we were taught about the spaghetti harvest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU
- wheybags 2y agoHah, so young and foolish. Everyone knows pasta grows on trees: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8scpGwbvxvI https://youtube.com/watch?v=8scpGwbvxvI
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- falcor84 2y agoI think that part of the reason for my thinking is that I've recently been playing around with USD (Universal Scene Description). It is currently mostly based on files, but I find the underlying representation - of layers of atomic properties being composed together in a massive tree - to be very elegant, and it can be managed in a database without any files or blobs anywhere. As another example: in the early web, behind every url was a file (with an actual file extension), but then we abstracted them into resources, and I feel that this coincided with an evolution of the field. The concept of a file or blob will probably still be useful in some capacity for decades to come, but I wouldn't want it to hinder us from realizing better abstractions.