4 ms·

Urbit is not intended to be deliberately obscure. Communication is hard, especially with such radically new ideas. That's why we're building this repository,

by pcmonk 12y ago

Urbit is not intended to be deliberately obscure. Communication is hard, especially with such radically new ideas. That's why we're building this repository, to lower the barrier to entry. Urbit is vast and new and often difficult to comprehend, but if there's any way we can help you guys understand it, let us know.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
I'm not sure it's radically new. Our machines only know one basic language and Urbit is an extension of that.
lisper 12y ago
> Urbit is not intended to be deliberately obscure. Well, you sure fooled me. > Communication is hard, especially with such radically new ideas. No, it's actually not. You start with a description of the problem you're trying to solve. Then you go on to explain why existing solutions don't solve it. Then you describe your solution, and what it is about your solution that solves the problem where previous attempts have failed. It's really quite straightforward. If you can't do it, that's a pretty good indication that you don't actually understand what you're doing. > if there's any way we can help you guys understand it, let us know A white paper would help a lot. But since you asked, here are a few specific questions: 1. What problem is Urbit supposed to solve? 2. What is the benefit of reinventing computer science from the ground up with nock and hoon? Why not start from an established base like C or Lisp or Scheme or Haskell or even the lambda calculus if you want to be purists about it? (Surely someone on the Urbit team has heard of Turing-equivalence?) 3. If your intention is not to be obscure, why do you employ overwhelmingly obscure terminology and punctuation? Why do you use ultra-short identifiers in your code? At a casual browse I can't find even one identifier in your code longer than five characters. (You do know that you can get more than 640k of RAM nowadays, yes?) I'm sorry for the snark, but I find Urbit incredibly frustrating. Curtis is very smart, which is pretty much the only reason that I don't just come right out and call shenanigans. But Urbit has been pegging my bogometer for a very long time.
- pavlov 12y ago
  At a casual browse I can't find even one identifier in your code longer than five characters. I found an identifier named "sivtyv-barnel", so apparently six-letter words are also allowed as long as the resulting name sounds like a Norwegian actress.
  - lisper 12y ago
    Maybe they're using the Travoltifier: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/low_concept/2014/03/john_travolta_called_idina_menzel_adele_dazeem_what_s_your_travolta_name.html http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/low_concept/2014/03/john_...
Igglyboo 12y ago
The terminology alone is enough to scare me away. Arvo, Hoon, Nock, Ships, etc.

by pcmonk 12y ago

jsprogrammer 12y ago

I'm not sure it's radically new. Our machines only know one basic language and Urbit is an extension of that.

lisper 12y ago

> Urbit is not intended to be deliberately obscure. Well, you sure fooled me. > Communication is hard, especially with such radically new ideas. No, it's actually not. You start with a description of the problem you're trying to solve. Then you go on to explain why existing solutions don't solve it. Then you describe your solution, and what it is about your solution that solves the problem where previous attempts have failed. It's really quite straightforward. If you can't do it, that's a pretty good indication that you don't actually understand what you're doing. > if there's any way we can help you guys understand it, let us know A white paper would help a lot. But since you asked, here are a few specific questions: 1. What problem is Urbit supposed to solve? 2. What is the benefit of reinventing computer science from the ground up with nock and hoon? Why not start from an established base like C or Lisp or Scheme or Haskell or even the lambda calculus if you want to be purists about it? (Surely someone on the Urbit team has heard of Turing-equivalence?) 3. If your intention is not to be obscure, why do you employ overwhelmingly obscure terminology and punctuation? Why do you use ultra-short identifiers in your code? At a casual browse I can't find even one identifier in your code longer than five characters. (You do know that you can get more than 640k of RAM nowadays, yes?) I'm sorry for the snark, but I find Urbit incredibly frustrating. Curtis is very smart, which is pretty much the only reason that I don't just come right out and call shenanigans. But Urbit has been pegging my bogometer for a very long time.

pavlov 12y ago
At a casual browse I can't find even one identifier in your code longer than five characters. I found an identifier named "sivtyv-barnel", so apparently six-letter words are also allowed as long as the resulting name sounds like a Norwegian actress.
- lisper 12y ago
  Maybe they're using the Travoltifier: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/low_concept/2014/03/john_travolta_called_idina_menzel_adele_dazeem_what_s_your_travolta_name.html http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/low_concept/2014/03/john_...

Igglyboo 12y ago

The terminology alone is enough to scare me away. Arvo, Hoon, Nock, Ships, etc.