| Funny you should mention Clojure -- a language that I found to not bestow any appreciable performance, abstraction, or usability advantage compared to a halfway decent Scheme-on-Java such as Kawa, yet still be different enough to be annoying. If you like Clojure, don't let me stop you. But I've shipped servlets written in Scheme that did millions of dollars in business... forgive me if I personally am a bit slow to accept that Rich Hickey has brought us fire from the gods. In other words, even if your claim is true, it describes almost every project in computing in the last 15 years. Now you see why when tickets go on sale for the next language, framework, or OS hypetrain, I'm quite reluctant to buy. That said, the old "it's just typical Moldbug" trope isn't much better than the propaganda his followers spout, and the rest is pretty weak too. Urbit is almost never presented as "here's an interesting pure-functional VM and OS abstraction layer I've been working on, I think its advantages are this-and-such" but Grand Pronouncements like "The Internet Has Failed. We are writing its successor. Join us. It is your destiny." The rationale is that since data silos are more common and accessible than distributed systems and ISPs are dickheads on the modern internet the internet itself is architecturally unsound. But data silos and dickhead ISPs are much more a social problem than a technical one, and I never heard technical reasoning for why the internet is broken from the Urbit folks. It's always "Google, Facebook, AOL, Comcast, therefore Unix and the internet are broken." But there's no chain of reasoning in the middle. It's a rhetorical cup-and-ball game. And when I challenge the Urbit folks on this and tell them that I see no benefit to Urbit that I can't get from other more battle-tested systems, and that Urbit is different enough to be annoying without being advantageous, I get one of a few stock responses: "That was fine for 1975. We're trying to build a system for 2015." It is 2015 (now 2016). You still haven't specified in any detail how the system I run every day isn't up to the task. "We want to make administering your server as easy as administering your smartphone." Smartphones are administered largely from afar, by actors whose interests mainly do not coincide with my own. So I don't think that's a goal you can really reach without severely compromising your vision. "In practice, Hoon is really easy and pleasant to use." So is Scheme. So is Haskell if you want to go full functional. So is C once you adopt certain simple practices. How, exactly, is Hoon easier and more pleasant than these? "Uhhh, yeah, we're working on making the documentation clearer and the names less weird..." Good. I might check again when that work is completed. I've encountered arguments of this type (Grand Pronouncements of the doom of the status quo, stock phrases as to why our system/product is better with a dearth of reasoning) before. It never, ever comes from a good place. And I totally get the desire to play at being Alan Kay. But doing that successfully requires Alan Kay levels of insight into how computers and brains work deep down, which Moldbug hasn't convinced me he has. |