5 ms·

I don't mean to imply that Chris gave up, just that LT is not going going to reach the features discussed in the original pitch. > Those of us who have been wo

by SCdF 12y ago

I don't mean to imply that Chris gave up, just that LT is not going going to reach the features discussed in the original pitch. > Those of us who have been working in this field for awhile already guessed that many of the features promised by the original lighttable kickstarter would require a new programming model to really work out. I guess I was naive, I presumed Chris knew something I didn't.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Reinventing programming is still a new field. We aren't really sure what is possible or not, and there are bound to be overly optimistic as well as pessimistic predictions.
- marktangotango 12y ago
  The problem I have with the notion of 'reinventing programming' is, you know what? Those guys in the 60's and 70's where pretty damn smart. A lot of really cool tech came before, but has been forgotten. We are living in the age that Richard Gabriel predicted the unix/c perfect virus won just as he said[1]. Which is sad and good in different ways. One of the sad parts is; all we have to show from xerox parc[2] is modern windowing systems (imo). So my point is; 'rediscovery' is a more apt way of expressing a lot of things today. [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#History
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    A lot of tech comes and goes because either (a) the time isn't right or (b) it isn't that good and gets superseded by something else. Those guys from the 60s and 70s were smart, but we are smart also! It is time for us to stop living in the past and start moving to the future. Full on live programming hasn't been accomplished yet, the best achieved are simple REPLs, hot code swapping in Erlang/Smalltalk (which does nothing with state), and...direct manipulation (you can just update your objects directly, screw any code). Some things just haven't been accomplished yet, and to claim they have been is just seriously dishonest and damaging since it dissuades people from trying. (I'm not referring to RPG here, I bet he is as frustrated as I am). So ignore the haters and just get things done, I guess.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > the best achieved are simple REPLs, hot code swapping in Erlang/Smalltalk (which does nothing with state), and...direct manipulation (you can just update your objects directly, screw any code) I think that sort of supports the point of the GP. Lisp had all the above and more (e.g. a proper REPL, live recompiling of everything in your image) since almost forever and yet not many people know about that. There's a lot of knowledge that was just forgotten by the fashion-industry IT is. So I don't think we should stop trying - but it's really worth to go through the work done in 60s and 70s, because we could use it.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        It's just not useful, they needed to go farther and wound up with a PX that some liked, but most didn't feel was worth it. Take the REPL for example, you are stuck in a linear command driven level of interaction if state is involved (and if state isn't, it is only useful as a fancy calculator). Take fix and continue in smaltalk - you can change the code, but you can't really fix the state (I.e. By time traveling), leaving your program in a seriously fragile state. And take morphic: where you can change the state (by directly manipulating objects) but not the code, so if you change something driven by code, your changes are completely ephemeral. Each experience is serious lacking, and there are good reasons they haven't taken over the world. Chris Hancock does a better job than me in describing this, which is why I keep bringing up his dissertation: https://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf https://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf
    - marktangotango 12y ago
      >>So ignore the haters and just get things done, I guess. Not sure if you're implying I'm a hater here or not, but being charitable I'll assume not. >> It is time for us to stop living in the past and start moving to the future. The old saw about those who don't know their history and repetition springs to mind. Edit: not imply you don't know the history, as you clearly do, but many don't.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago

by SCdF 12y ago

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Reinventing programming is still a new field. We aren't really sure what is possible or not, and there are bound to be overly optimistic as well as pessimistic predictions.

marktangotango 12y ago
The problem I have with the notion of 'reinventing programming' is, you know what? Those guys in the 60's and 70's where pretty damn smart. A lot of really cool tech came before, but has been forgotten. We are living in the age that Richard Gabriel predicted the unix/c perfect virus won just as he said[1]. Which is sad and good in different ways. One of the sad parts is; all we have to show from xerox parc[2] is modern windowing systems (imo). So my point is; 'rediscovery' is a more apt way of expressing a lot of things today. [1] http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29#History
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  A lot of tech comes and goes because either (a) the time isn't right or (b) it isn't that good and gets superseded by something else. Those guys from the 60s and 70s were smart, but we are smart also! It is time for us to stop living in the past and start moving to the future. Full on live programming hasn't been accomplished yet, the best achieved are simple REPLs, hot code swapping in Erlang/Smalltalk (which does nothing with state), and...direct manipulation (you can just update your objects directly, screw any code). Some things just haven't been accomplished yet, and to claim they have been is just seriously dishonest and damaging since it dissuades people from trying. (I'm not referring to RPG here, I bet he is as frustrated as I am). So ignore the haters and just get things done, I guess.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > the best achieved are simple REPLs, hot code swapping in Erlang/Smalltalk (which does nothing with state), and...direct manipulation (you can just update your objects directly, screw any code) I think that sort of supports the point of the GP. Lisp had all the above and more (e.g. a proper REPL, live recompiling of everything in your image) since almost forever and yet not many people know about that. There's a lot of knowledge that was just forgotten by the fashion-industry IT is. So I don't think we should stop trying - but it's really worth to go through the work done in 60s and 70s, because we could use it.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      It's just not useful, they needed to go farther and wound up with a PX that some liked, but most didn't feel was worth it. Take the REPL for example, you are stuck in a linear command driven level of interaction if state is involved (and if state isn't, it is only useful as a fancy calculator). Take fix and continue in smaltalk - you can change the code, but you can't really fix the state (I.e. By time traveling), leaving your program in a seriously fragile state. And take morphic: where you can change the state (by directly manipulating objects) but not the code, so if you change something driven by code, your changes are completely ephemeral. Each experience is serious lacking, and there are good reasons they haven't taken over the world. Chris Hancock does a better job than me in describing this, which is why I keep bringing up his dissertation: https://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf https://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/ch-phd.pdf
  - marktangotango 12y ago
    >>So ignore the haters and just get things done, I guess. Not sure if you're implying I'm a hater here or not, but being charitable I'll assume not. >> It is time for us to stop living in the past and start moving to the future. The old saw about those who don't know their history and repetition springs to mind. Edit: not imply you don't know the history, as you clearly do, but many don't.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago