You are viewing archived messages.
Go here to search the history.

Mariano Guerra 2024-01-25 10:31:23

Why aren't you using one of these? What's missing in them? is your use case not covered?

  • is the Moldable Development environment. It empowers you to make systems explainable through experiences tailored for each problem.
  • A new approach to Distributed programming
  • A reactive DSL for full-stack web development, with compiler-managed frontend/backend network sync
  • a new programming platform that ** reduces the cost of building scalable backends by 100x
  • Multiplayer Platform for Web and Unity
  • Nodes and wires data manipulation
  • reactive data boards & flows
  • a symbolic language, deliberately designed with the breadth and unity needed to develop powerful programs quickly.
Tom Lieber 2024-01-25 15:37:00

I’m using one of them, but only one. This looks like the start of a fun advent calendar.

Konrad Hinsen 2024-01-25 16:13:42

I use one of them (Glamorous Toolkit) regularly, but not for everything. I was aware of perhaps half of the systems in your list, so I have a good excuse for the other half: ignorance.

My main reason for not using any of these for most of my coding is weak (or absent) ecosystem support for my application domains, plus past investment into other ecosystems.

A special mention goes to the Wolfram language, which would be a great fit for much that I do but which I do not use at all because of its proprietary nature. Even if I were personally willing to spend the roughly 1000€/year they charge for academics, I would seriously limit my collaborations if I expected my collaborators to do the same.

Peter Abrahamsen 2024-01-26 19:28:20

Because I ask myself these questions:

  • will it be around in five or ten years? will this language/library be a liability for the company?
  • how will it limit my use of other libraries, tools, languages, etc?
  • how confident am I that this won’t embarrass us in production? will I spend a week tracking down some weird performance thing?
  • will another engineer understand what’s going on? will the next person roll their eyes and rewrite everything in javascript?
  • how much of a distraction will its strangeness become? how much political capital will I have to spend on the decision to use it?

It’s rarely a question of features.

Peter Abrahamsen 2024-01-26 19:34:11

GToolkit’s sidesteps a lot of this if you use it as an IDE. I don’t use it because it seems like getting any value of it involves a sizable investment in learning the interface, language, and libraries, and I can get by OK exploring an API or whatever by using a REPL.

Peter Abrahamsen 2024-01-26 19:34:45

It means a lot that GToolkit has been around for a long time and is being used by professionals solving real problems in the real world.

Jacob Zimmerman 2024-01-26 02:08:40

Just curious for all your thoughts, is being ahead of your time a good thing? I’m thinking of a conversation I had with @Toby Schachman in the Cuttle discord a while back where he mentioned that Cuttle aimed certain details at a status-quo of programming style unlike it’s predecessor Apparatus, I thought that was quite profound. I’m thinking also of Fortran vs Lisp (or perhaps Forth). When is it not worth it to meet people where they are?

Personal Dynamic Media 2024-01-26 02:11:16

Being too far ahead of your time may not be very good for you personally, but your example can end up being helpful to those who come after you.

Jason Morris 2024-01-26 03:30:58

Meeting people where they are, and being ahead of your time, are orthogonal, I think. The more ahead of your time you are, the more necessary it is to meet people where they are. Something that is very different is not therefore necessarily alienating, or difficult. It can be different precisely because of how much easier it is. But if something very different is also very difficult, it will have far less influence than it might have otherwise. Always meet your users where they are, whether you want to make evolutionary or revolutionary change. And if you can't, get different users, or make different changes.

Konrad Hinsen 2024-01-26 10:35:17

First question: what does "a good thing" mean? Good for the author? For the field? For society? Short-term or long-term?

Chris Krycho 2024-01-26 17:06:04

Sometimes it makes sense to invest in something you know is very unlikely to be mainstream, because you’re trying to push frontiers; sometimes you’re specifically trying to take previously frontier ideas into the mainstream, and those have very different tradeoffs.

Chris Krycho 2024-01-26 17:08:26

A good example here is the difference between Rust and the research languages it drew on. Rust itself (the example used to make a related point in the post I linked above) needed to be pretty mainstream in many of its surface syntax choices, even if the language designers might have preferred other syntaxes, because it was bringing along so much novelty in terms of type system, how it was asking people to think about systems programming and memory safety, etc.

Chris Krycho 2024-01-26 17:10:10

Similarly, TypeScript’s success is very much a function of being a very small syntactical superset of JS, and being purely a way to express statically what (a[n ever-growing] subset of) the dynamic behavior of JS code is. Other compile-to-JS languages have had much less adoption, and TS has significantly changed the baseline for what kinds of type system constructs “mainstream” developers consider reasonable/normal as a result.

Chris Krycho 2024-01-26 17:11:32

But on the other hand, even still in relatively mainstream programming (by comparison to a lot of the stuff we chat about in here), Elm has had comparatively minimal adoption, but has profoundly influenced the design of many other compilers and languages, by staking out a position and design ethos which have in turn shown that (for example) the baseline we were all used to and accepting of from compilers was not actually a necessary baseline, and that it could be much better.

Eli Mellen 2024-01-28 14:06:35

I wanted to bounce 2 terms I've been thinking of off of this group:

I dig visual programming, but think the term is like a little bit of a brain poison because it isn't really descriptive of the goals, and, like, almost all textual programming is inherently visual, the way text is.

I think Ivan Reese was the person I first heard float the term "spatial programming," which I dig, but at least for me, it also misses the real value add of what I'm looking for in a "visual" system.

So, the two terms I've been kicking around:

  • relational programming
  • cartographic programming

Neither are perfect, and both feel exhaustingly pretentious (a good thing, may haps?) but my intention with both terms is to highlight that these sorts of systems, unlike text-based programming, help make the relationships between different elements (classes, data flow, inheritance, etc.) meaningful using information other than similar names.

Useful? Stupid? Prior art?

Eli Mellen 2024-01-28 14:11:35

I like cartographic over spatial because apple has overloaded the term, recently.

Don Abrams 2024-01-28 14:16:32 used diagrammatic programming as a subgenre of visual programming

Lu Wilson 2024-01-28 14:18:24

"spatial" is becoming very overloaded recently, with apple adopting it for their VR stuff. I use it to specify that it's "not sentential programming". I took it from SPLAT, which stands for Spatial Programming Language with Ascii Text.

but i misused it - I took the wrong part. the thing that makes it "non-sentential" is the ASCII TEXT, not the SPATIAL PROGRAMMING. it compiles to Ulam, which also works with spatial data, but using a sentential syntax.

essentially I don't care what terminology i use for it. the key thing is that I show how to program by arranging before-and-after diagrams

Ivan Reese 2024-01-28 15:09:59

Spatial programming definitely goes way back. I've mostly seen it used in a similar sense to how Apple are using it, so it doesn't bother me too much. (But I haven't travelled much in the automata circles)

The term I like is "graphical programming", but I've also learned that this term has some historical usage I don't agree with.

So I'm kinda with Lu. It's like trying to describe musical genre. I don't mind doing it for other music, but for my own music? No. Never.

I'm just going to make the things that interest me and let others figure out what to call them.

(I've been told I make prog rock, which feels about as mortally offensive as claiming "node-wire" is a programming paradigm)

Alex McLean 2024-01-28 18:25:47

Oh I really like "cartographic programming". Maps are all about integrating continuous space with discrete markers, and textual labels and they work really well. The metaphor also works for me in terms of the relationship between code and what it represents, being like the relationship between a map and territory.