Messages

Right. But, if we can't access the projector, it's not much use to anybody that we're a projection, is it?

[source]

 "A program that translates between high-level languages is usually called a language translator, source to source translator, or language converter."

A human is not intended to read/edit/maintain the output of a compiler. While it is technically possible it is neither practical nor standard practice.

A human is intended to read/edit/maintain the source-code output of a language translator.

The javascript output of the GWT compiler is not source code.
[ .... snip ... ]

When you get into stuff like java (bytecode based, though even that is blurred with JITs and such) the actual distinction between a translator and a compiler becomes so fuzzy that the choice of wording is little more than a statement about the level of respect you have for the project.

Nope. You can get language-translator generated code which is maintainable, GWT is not an example of this however.

A translator between two radically different languages has precisely as much complexity as a compiler (which historically has been a translator between a high level language and either assembler or machine language, and is now considered a translator between a high level language and a low level language, bytecodes being more or less an attempt at a platform-agnostic machine code). Something that translates between java and javascript, no matter how well, could be argued as either a compiler or a translator. I would label it a translator, and not out of disrespect. I have done projects of that type, and there are complexities involved.

If GWT outputted maintainable javascript, then I would agree. But it doesn't so I don't.

However, we are currently arguing over what word to apply to a project merely tangentally related to the subject at hand. I am sure that our impotent nerdrage is scaring people away from the thread. Can we agree to disagree about what label to apply to GWT, and simply say that the wave demo is written in java and/or javascript?

Sure, as long as you don't keep using it as an example of why Google don't care about efficiencies.

The interest in Google Wave demonstrated in this thread does seem to hinge on whether or not it's slow or slick - e.g. 000 thinks rich web applications are a dead concept.

Regardless of whether or not the javascript that happens to be output is maintainable (and mind you, being someone who has written compilers, translators, interpreters, etc. and maintained pretty large projects in languages like TCL, PROLOG, FORTH, Erlang, assembler, etc., 'maintainable' is a terribly subjective term, particularly when referring to the code output by any kind of meta-program) it is still javascript. This means that it is a high level language, even if it's optimized by some complex analysis of code in another language. It is still going to be more or less as fast as (very fast) javascript can be.

Free?


Regardless of the radix of the numerical system used on the sphere that projects our universe (create a pentition to ban universe, or  ) the fundamental shift in this appears to be that if we cut the universe in half, we get two half-quality universes rather than two half-universes. I'd jump on this as the most important and shocking element, just as in relativity the most immediately wtf element was the rearranging of shit so that the speed of light is a constant but time isn't.

If this turns out to be right (or right enough that we can use the principle), there might in theory be pretty awesome practical applications. Specifically, if we could take a tiny chunk of the 'universe' (rather than its projection) and monitor it in a different inertial system with a separate projection, we could see into a (hypothetical) future -- maybe. Or we could monitor a chunk in order to see what is happening in some distant place faster than we can use electromagnetic methods to monitor it. We could use it to intercept quantum-entanglement based communications which can't be intercepted through quantum entanglement without giving it away.

When you get into stuff like java (bytecode based, though even that is blurred with JITs and such) the actual distinction between a translator and a compiler becomes so fuzzy that the choice of wording is little more than a statement about the level of respect you have for the project.

A translator between two radically different languages has precisely as much complexity as a compiler (which historically has been a translator between a high level language and either assembler or machine language, and is now considered a translator between a high level language and a low level language, bytecodes being more or less an attempt at a platform-agnostic machine code). Something that translates between java and javascript, no matter how well, could be argued as either a compiler or a translator. I would label it a translator, and not out of disrespect. I have done projects of that type, and there are complexities involved.

However, we are currently arguing over what word to apply to a project merely tangentally related to the subject at hand. I am sure that our impotent nerdrage is scaring people away from the thread. Can we agree to disagree about what label to apply to GWT, and simply say that the wave demo is written in java and/or javascript?

For what it's worth, I really *do* think they based it off enfilades; I don't see enfilades in most other google things, and when they described the data structure that 'is' google wave at the end of the video, they were basically describing an enfilade.

Well an enfilade is basically a standard b-tree, but with a more efficient indexing system, right? So if they base it on anything like a standard b-tree, it could end up looking like an enfilade, especially if they gloss over the indexing? I dunno, I've been burned many times making false tech assumptions, that I've learned the value of caution, especially when there is inconclusive data.

The major difference between a b-tree and an enfilade is that b-trees split and reorganize based on the (very small and fairly static) 'optimal' number of children. A 2/3 b-tree will almost always have 1, 2, or 3 children. An enfilade has n children, and doesn't reorganize because it's not a search tree.

Tumbler addressing isn't part of an enfilade -- it just so happens that it's terribly fast when used in combination with enfilades. The same principle of addressing by transfinite numbers is the basis for the dewy decimal system.

Also, GWT isn't a translator for Java.

It's not?

Google Web Toolkit (GWT), especially when combined with the Google Plugin for Eclipse, eases this burden by allowing developers to quickly build and maintain complex yet highly performant JavaScript front-end applications in the Java programming language.

No, it's not translator or interpreter for Java, it's compiled and highly optimised into Javascript. The claim is that it can now out-perform hand-crafted Javascript for moderately complex tasks - never really getting my hands dirty with Javascript I can't confirm that independently. Though I've had no issues with speed when using GWT: http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/examples/

A smart optimizing translator is still a translator. Java and javascript both are terribly slow compared to well-written native code. I'm not claiming that GWT is trivial when I say it's a translator -- I am describing its function, not its mechanism. You stick java source in one end, and javascript comes out the other.

What I get from this is:

• The only thing Google does better than you is PR and marketing
• Google is stupid, and you are smart
• You see enfilades everywhere, even places they have no reason to be

That is a pretty accurate list. For what it's worth, I really *do* think they based it off enfilades; I don't see enfilades in most other google things, and when they described the data structure that 'is' google wave at the end of the video, they were basically describing an enfilade.

Also, GWT isn't a translator for Java.

It's not?

Google Web Toolkit (GWT), especially when combined with the Google Plugin for Eclipse, eases this burden by allowing developers to quickly build and maintain complex yet highly performant JavaScript front-end applications in the Java programming language.

I'm a fan of the data structure, yes. And most of the apparent power of google wave derives from the data structure. I would argue that google is overcomplicating their design terribly, however, my first five or six implementations of this kind of thing were likewise overcomplicated.

If you do it Right* you implement the data structure, a couple wrappers, and a very simple protocol, then stick up a simple UI and some data in to start with, and you are done in a week or two. Google has spent two years doing what shouldn't take them a month had they really considered the problem (mind you, had they really considered the problem for six years, but they probably should have called up Ted Nelson).

* Right, in this case, is from the POV of a Xanadu fanboy with an inordinate internal emphasis on system programming and writing glue. I'd find it easier to do it this way, but at the same time, I would probably end up doing it in something like D or Erlang, and telling end users to fuck themselves in press conferences; google has better marketing skills than I do, obviously, and I doubt they care very much about the efficiency difference between tumbler addresses and URLs, given that they are writing the demo in Java with a javascript translator.

I saw the video, and read the docs. It seems like the backend is basically an enfilade structure (in the xanadu sense -- i.e., it's a god damn nth-order b-tree with splitting on demand rather than based on numbers). I like enfilades (and a lot of the other xanadu data structures) so I'm happy with this -- I'd be happier if they used enfilades the way they were meant to be used (with tumbler addressing and transfinite numbers, because it's FAST)

what's an enfilade? sounds interesting.

Code Select Expand


typedef struct enfilade_t {
char* data;       // document
struct enfilade_t ** children;  // array of pointers to children
int child_count;
} enfilade;


A tumbler address is an array of integers between 0 and child_count - 1. To address any document in an enfilade structure, loop through the  tumbler, and insert the current index as the index of the child enfilade, like so:

Code Select Expand


char* get_stuffs(int* tumbler, enfilade* foo) {
if ( ++tumbler == NULL ) {
return foo.data;
}
return get_stuffs(tumbler, foo.child[tumbler[0]]);
}


The code may be wrong because it's 6 AM and I haven't had any caffeine yet.

The thing is, the idea isn't new -- it dates from circa 1961. This makes it older than two-dimensional arrays. Google has re-branded it, sure.

huh, ok maybe I should have watched the video all the way through, but really, I couldnt stand watching those smug google fuckheads for another minute.

what does this wave thing actually do, then?

it seemed to me it was just kind of like a combination between EtherPad (multiplayer notepad), forum-threads and mailinglists all mashed up into a bloated GWT app.

so assuming that is just part of it, which bits did I miss?

also, really, whatever it is, and does, I hope (probably in vain) someone (google) will release a lightweight (think uTorrent and HFS) stand-alone client for this thing, if it's supposed to be anything, because really the days of "rich web applications" are fucking over, it was a dead end to begin with, using the browser to do something it was never meant to do, building on legacy code upon scripting language, plugging holes, it's a mess. just an example, most people that use Twitter stepped away from the browser to an external app.

The frontend is what they demoed, for the first part, but they said that the front end was swappable and what they were really selling was *their* front end plus *the* back end.

I'd argue that what their design showed was what would happen if you stored google docs in an enfilade back-end, in chunks. It's certainly not much more than that. Once you have properly implemented the backend, it's going to mostly be rearranging and spitting out chunks of html.

Well if someone is unconscious or so drunk they are incoherent, then, you can't really consent. And if the dude is sober, well... thats out of line, and probably should constitute an offence.

A decent person doesn't take advantage of a heavily intoxicated person.

However i can see the potential for abuse by some women.

Correct motorcycle, imo.

I saw the video, and read the docs. It seems like the backend is basically an enfilade structure (in the xanadu sense -- i.e., it's a god damn nth-order b-tree with splitting on demand rather than based on numbers). I like enfilades (and a lot of the other xanadu data structures) so I'm happy with this -- I'd be happier if they used enfilades the way they were meant to be used (with tumbler addressing and transfinite numbers, because it's FAST) but google is primarily a web service company, not a systems programming company, so I can understand that they might ignore the most bloatsaving features of a pretty nuanced idea (it took me several years to really understand the draw of using tumbler addressing and enfilades). Ted Nelson did a google tech talk, and Plan R has been in effect at xanadu since around 1993, so presumably there is an implicit goahead on using this (potentially nasty, licensing-wise) data structure.

The thing is, the idea isn't new -- it dates from circa 1961. This makes it older than two-dimensional arrays. Google has re-branded it, sure. They have put it to use. But sooner or later someone is going to realize that a competent coder can whip this up in a couple of lines of python (the back end at least -- and if third party apps are just chunks of javascript and sgml in the istream, the frontend won't need to be much more than parsing through and spitting chunks into the vstream). In fact, a competent coder could pretty easily build a majorly improve (on a fundamental level) system based on the same design -- for instance, a couple weeks ago a friend and I were walking around town and managed to work out the design for a transparently distributed enfilade with redundancy, based around a normal SQL database and a modicum of clever message passing. This would be significantly easier to implement in, say, erlang, than a markov chain or a brainfuck interpreter. Granted, both of us have been working with various forms of the xanadu code and documentation for years, but once you get past some of the special terminology the ideas aren't that complex.

I applaud google for putting much-needed tech out there, especially when it has been kicking around for fifty years. I just think they are facing a situation where they can either do a half-assed implementation or put themselves shit out of business (or at least up the creek).

School, procrastination, and having other books I'd prefer to be reading is keeping me from doing Angel Tech. I'd be happy to suggest books for people not in this situation, though.

No one there thinks that 12-21-12 will be the date of the rapture, but they are coming up will all sorts of fun conspiracy theories about how the Antichrist is using the hype around 2012 to further his agenda, obviously to deceive people away from Christ.

But the Antichrist is only six, and She doesn't even know how to USE a calendar.

That's what They WANT you to think! 

or, put another way, a grand each from 20 of us.

Which would be harder? 20x $1,000 or 20,000x $1 ?

Cause I'm now thinking Commune Timeshare. Advertise the Real Discordian^TM experience (you know: free love, cheech and chong movie marathons, elvis look-a-like competitions, rant workshops, etc). How hard is it to out-sex Scientology? I'm sure you could get more people interested in securing their place than who would actually show up.

For example, if in any year, you assume 10% turnout for any 5-day slot, that's only about 25-30 guests at a time. If you up the investment to $5, then you're down to a more manageable 5-6 guests. Plus on top of that you have a yearly "maintenance fee", charge "guest fees" for bringing along recruits friends, invest all that into new infrastructure and it's the perfect scam business plan.

So, we'd be catering to tourists? As lucrative as that may be, I can't see us being as successful as the hawaiians or amish, and probably will have equally irritating 'guests'.

[The Smiler]

-the game is sending you into the real world. Sometimes you might be interacting with strangers. So our game takes place in the real world, or a close cousin of it. When you go in-game you're in a slightly altered universe. So the backstory can't make any visible changes to the world. It's still the year 2009. The Smiler is still the US President.

fixed.

I'll see what I can come up with for this issue.