←back to thread

1401 points alankay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

This request originated via recent discussions on HN, and the forming of HARC! at YC Research. I'll be around for most of the day today (though the early evening).
Show context
wdanilo ◴[] No.11941656[source]
Hi Alan! I've got some assumptions regarding the upcoming big paradigm shift (and I believe it will happen sooner than later):

1. focus on data processing rather than imperative way of thinking (esp. functional programming)

2. abstraction over parallelism and distributed systems

3. interactive collaboration between developers

4. development accessible to a much broader audience, especially to domain experts, without sacrificing power users

In fact the startup I'm working in aims exactly in this direction. We have created a purely functional visual<->textual language Luna ( http://www.luna-lang.org ).

By visual<->textual I mean that you can always switch between code, graph and vice versa.

What do you think about these assumptions?

replies(2): >>11942789 #>>11945722 #
alankay ◴[] No.11945722[source]
What if "data" is a really bad idea?
replies(3): >>11945869 #>>11956981 #>>11984719 #
richhickey ◴[] No.11945869[source]
Data like that sentence? Or all of the other sentences in this chat? I find 'data' hard to consider a bad idea in and of itself, i.e. if data == information, records of things known/uttered at a point in time. Could you talk more about data being a bad idea?
replies(2): >>11946532 #>>11948698 #
alankay ◴[] No.11946532[source]
What is "data" without an interpreter (and when we send "data" somewhere, how can we send it so its meaning is preserved?)
replies(3): >>11946764 #>>11957966 #>>11959640 #
richhickey ◴[] No.11946764[source]
Data without an interpreter is certainly subject to (multiple) interpretation :) For instance, the implications of your sentence weren't clear to me, in spite of it being in English (evidently, not indicated otherwise). Some metadata indicated to me that you said it (should I trust that?), and when. But these seem to be questions of quality of representation/conveyance/provenance (agreed, important) rather than critiques of data as an idea. Yes, there is a notion of sufficiency ('42' isn't data).

Data is an old and fundamental idea. Machine interpretation of un- or under-structured data is fueling a ton of utility for society. None of the inputs to our sensory systems are accompanied by explanations of their meaning. Data - something given, seems the raw material of pretty much everything else interesting, and interpreters are secondary, and perhaps essentially, varied.

replies(2): >>11946935 #>>11946989 #
ontouchstart ◴[] No.11946989[source]
Information in "entropy" sense is objective and meaningless. Meaning only exists within a context. If we think "data" represent information, "interpreters" bring us context and therefore meaning.
replies(1): >>11961330 #
1. jsa-aerial ◴[] No.11961330{3}[source]
Thank you - I was beginning to wonder if anyone in this conversation understood this. It is really the key to meaningfully (!!) move forward in this stuff.