Re:What's wrong with Software nowadays and how we can fix it
by rtens on Monday December 05, 2016 @11:48AM
(#13106735)
- that's exactly what it is. And the way I see it, actors are an implementation of OOP (in it's original meaning) so I would stick with "everything in an object"
- thanks =)
- I had that same feeling while writing it, constantly balancing my own ignorance with an acceptable level of vagueness
- call me the over-the-top guy. But the way I see, your vision has to be grand, if not megalomaniac if you want the essence to survive the collision with reality
- seamlessly migrating networked objects are one of the lesser over-the-top ideas though
Re:What's wrong with Software nowadays and how we can fix it
by inimino on Monday December 05, 2016 @12:26PM
(#13107146)
If the thesis is relevant at all to what you're doing now, might I suggest linking to it directly from the manifesto? Otherwise it sounds mostly like you are very excited about something, but I got almost no idea what that something is.
Re:What's wrong with Software nowadays and how we can fix it
by rtens on Monday December 05, 2016 @01:08PM
(#13107646)
That's probably the biggest weakpoint of the manifesto but also kinda on purpose. While the thesis was all about "let's build something" the manifesto is a fresh start trying to answer the question "what is the problem?". The thesis is still relevant but a bit outdated and I'll probably rewrite it in multiple blog articles.
What I'm planning to use as information starting point is zells.org but it's all still in an early stage. At the moment I'm working on creating a document that visualizes the "end product" that I have in mind.
Re:What's wrong with Software nowadays and how we can fix it
by inimino on Monday December 05, 2016 @01:19PM
(#13107759)
After looking at the thesis and the manifesto, I think your best bet is to create one worked example, in pseudo-code or whatever, and then see if you can get anyone on board with that.
- It seems some kind of language/computation-model. Loosely based on a "everything is an actor" model.
- It did look goodish. I tried following the Fibonacci example, which sort of made sense (I got the impression that recursion is handled by creating new nodes/zells). The discussion chapter also seemed interesting.
- It has that abstruse academic feel, where sometimes it is hard to assess whether the problem is my ignorance, or just vagueness of the publication.
- Motivation sections usually have an exaggerated tone to them (i.e. this will totally change everything), but this one, and the article above, are a bit over the top.
- There are also some over-the-top statements sprinkled throughout the thesis (e.g. "a model of virtual objects which exist independent of any hardware").