Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fusiongyro 5138 days ago
I succumb to these emotions from time to time, but it's worth noting that—software wise—you can certainly live in the past we hoped we'd have if you put in a modicum of effort:

Plan 9: actively maintained, runs well in a VM: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/

Smalltalk: many options, notably Pharo: http://www.pharo-project.org

Lisp machine emulators: http://www.unlambda.com/

Haiku is approaching a 1.0 release quickly: http://haiku-os.org/

And of course you can have a "real" keyboard if you desire, such as the Kinesis Ergo: http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/ Switching to this keyboard and the Dvorak layout is certainly an upgrade from consumer to professional equipment and, requiring about a month to retrain, will certainly dispel the illusion that discomfort is an essential and missing part of acquiring expertise at computing. The fact that I type faster than my peers makes the fact that I write code much more slowly than them all the more bizarre.

I'd love to know why superior technologies fail to conquer markets, particularly enabling technologies like Smalltalk, but my point is that our man Stanislav has no excuse: they exist now and he knows about them and can use them right now if he wants. Instead he seems to be embarking on some kind of ambitious hardware project. Good luck to him on that, but if his definition of success greatly exceeds (say) CoffeeScript or BeOS's success, he can expect failure, regardless of how long his ideas endure or how influential they are.

3 comments

Alan Kay makes the point repeatedly that when implementation (or usage) of a technology outstrips education, what you get is a pop culture, driven by marketing and fads, AKA eternal September.
I think you and by proxy Alan Kay nailed it there.

As a person who purchases items for need and function, not form, desire or promise [1], I get to see the distinction daily.

[1] all my current worldly posessions together cost 50% less than a new low-end MacBook Pro (bar one item - a musical instrument).

Emulators don't cut it, because the bottom-most complexity layer matters:

http://www.loper-os.org/?p=448

http://www.loper-os.org/?p=55

And the ground rules of computer system creation have changed. The reasonably-cheap, high-capacity FPGA now exists, as it did not in the age of the BeBox. It is no longer necessary for a hardware project to generate millions of sales (or any sales at all) in order to be "successful" (in the sense of actually remaining available to interested persons indefinitely.)

That being said, I am still working on a Linux-based emulator for the Loper architecture. In all likelihood, it will be unusably slow for any truly practical use, but will serve as a proof of concept (that is to say, agitprop.)

(Author of linked article speaking, in case no one noticed.)

I like your notion of bedrock abstraction. I don't see the connection between it and the idea that emulators don't cut it.
Details of the underlying computer architecture (say, x86) and the implementation of the emulator (say, C/C++) inevitably leak into the abstractions nominally above that level.

One trivial example: let's say that I want to emulate a machine with 100,000 CPUs. On a quad-core PC. There is a strong pressure to reduce the number of emulated CPUs if possible, to more closely correspond with the physical architecture. This in turn leads the user of the emulator to avoid the kind of programming that would take advantage of 100,000 CPUs. Already the notion that "you can emulate anything" productively falls out the window.

Likewise for type-tagged architectures. (The user always has an incentive to strip away the "unnecessary" tags.) Look at Common Lisp and its "optimize" directives. The result is inevitably that somewhere in the system, there will be "C-style," non-type-tagged code. This is a Bad Thing.

Superior technologies succumb to marketing from lesser products.

Going back to the guy who built a motorbike in the desert, the Citroen 2CV is a remarkable piece of engineering and design, but everyone would rather drive a disposable iPod (ford) than a LISP machine (2CV).

This is precisely due to marketing and turd polish.