Urbit: an operating function
urbit.org
urbit.org
For an exactly diametric plunge from the same origin into the rarefied esoteric, there is: https://github.com/mnemnion/ax/blob/master/commentary%20on%2...
And poking around the repo, there are gems like this:
"A...variable name is a random pronounceable three-letter string, sometimes with some vague relationship to its meaning, but usually not..."
"Nock, for mysterious reasons, uses 0 as true...and 1 as false..."
The architecture is really cool, but the syntax is terrible.
I don't think you can judge syntax by looking at it -- you have to use it for a little while. Hoon's syntax looks hard, but it's actually rather pleasant to use.
I've actually taken to using TLVs with a Hungarian suffix in C -- it works well if (and only if) you have short, simple functions.
One way to think about variable names: declaring a variable is a way of saying "I couldn't quite get this into point-free form." Names should be the exception, not the rule. Again, this is much more true in a functional language.
There's overreaching first-principles boil-the-ocean dorm room rethinking of concepts, and then there's renaming the ASCII characters.
As it happens, "green" exists linguistically, so one is not compelled to wax artfully about the "yellow-blue blades [of grass] laced in dew". However, it used to be that the only way to talk of "orange" was as "yellow-red" or similar, until the simplifying convention of a new word for a distinct entity took hold.
Edit: Further, Urbit's equivalent of the Sunflower State Congress plan gloms enough together that an atomistically novel domain specific vocabulary is at least as useful.
Edit: As one effectively lay to the many disciplines of the professional field of computation, I use this forum to advertise my continued interest in a critical audit of Urbit. If Keean Schupke and Thomas Lord can probe the depths of Carl Hewitt's ActorScript [1] (the true standard for any so accused "obscurantist" software), then a fortiori Urbit's Anathem barrier [2] can be only semi-impermeable.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board
As I age, I find it harder and harder to remember how easy and natural it is for young people to learn new things: ideas, theories, languages, and yes -- names. Alas, we can't rejuvenate our brains. I know of only one (partial) cure: have your own kids. You'll feel jealous all the time, but it's worth it.
It's painful to admit that I'm probably too old to learn other peoples' new languages. But any new language isn't and can't be designed for 42-year-old silverbacks. It has to be designed for kids -- or at least, people are who are kids now. And believe me, teenagers love this kind of stuff...
[Edit: tptacek, when you edit a comment after posting it, I think it's good etiquette to mark it with an [edit]]?
I'm a parent of two teenagers, neither of whom seems particularly interested in new names for punctuation.
An XS Nock shirt is a dress for my daughter, but she loves the "code." I guess all kids are different. But you never know what they're ready to learn until you try to teach them.
Even more digressing, I'm very curious if young brains have an innate sense of 'new' in the most complex and abstract sense. It's as if they smell it.
Languages with lots of symbols tend to be incredibly difficult to read at first. If you have a programming language where a typical program looks like line noise, it means the programming language is going to likely have a very steep learning curve (because a lot of those operators are probably not going to have their standardized meaning).
Think about Python. A well-written Python program is similar to the pseudocode you would write on a napkin. For a concrete example, look at the whitepaper's definition of I1 in pseudo-code. The "pseudo-Hoon" implementation of I1 looks totally different from the pseudocode, and to even begin to read the Hoon code, I would have to look up the meanings of approximately 10 different operators.
I guess there are two different camps of language design -- the Perl / Ruby / shell camp where having lots of non-standard operators in your syntax is desirable, and the C / Python / Lua camp which prefers a small set of operators with meanings close to their "standard" mathematical ones.
To me, C syntax is obvious, because I've been using it for 30 years. It may be a small set of operators, but "meanings close to their standard mathematical ones" may be a bit of a stretch.
If you're going to put a lot of energy into binding syntax to sound to semantics, you only want to do it once (per language, at least.)
Hence why geeks and programmers rarely call them by name. See http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/A/ASCII.html .
Everyone who's learned our ASCII dictionary, which admittedly is not a whole lot of people, applies it compulsively.
nap [
pan ]
lep (
pel }
urbit has a high startup cost and is hampered by a lack of documentation as well as a desire to reinvent terminology as well as a fast changing API to write too. All of which means that it's more suitable for the curious and hobbyists right now.
I'm withholding judgement on whether it will manage to succeed despite these.
"The INTERCAL manual gives unusual names to all non-alphanumeric ASCII characters: single and double quotes are "sparks" and "rabbit ears" respectively. (The exception is the ampersand: as the Jargon File states, "what could be sillier?") The assignment operator ... is in INTERCAL a left-arrow, <-, referred to as "gets" and made up of an "angle" and a "worm"."
http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans6.htm#6.1
The names are a mix between the visual (* is 'star', and ; is 'semicolon') and the semantic (<> is 'not-equals', and ! is 'store'). Some are a mix (+! is 'plus-store').
I'm with you with 'arrow', though.
"All happy families are alike; each unhappy family
is unhappy in its own way"
The architecture is no more esoteric than Unix, C, C++, or a submicron-scale polished turd like HTML5+CSS+JavaScript+React+JSX+NodeJS or most other "stacks."
It's just unfamiliar because it's new, and that's okay, because it is not making any pretensions about not being new or about being a baby-step hack on top of our existing heap of hacks. If you're going to try to reinvent the OS and the platform, then go full Yoda and do or do not.
And, with its Kelvin (count down to zero, then freeze forever) revisioning scheme, Urbit admits its own mortality (or so it seems to me). Any change that can not be managed as an intrasystemic, in place upgrade must necessarily - and righteously - detonate the Urbit ecosystem as thoroughly as mature Urbit obviates Unix. Future competitors are thereby encouraged to be equally generalist, thus hardening Urbit against dissolution via tepid, partial reforms.
I don't know if this is good or bad, but it is sincerely trying to do new things, so a new language is appropriate.
In fact, they would end up saying: well, all we are trying to do already exists, so let's just write a library here, another there. You can argue this would be better, but their goal is to do a completely different thing, even if it looks it could be done with a new library for something.
In Urbit new developers not only have to learn all the new concept words, they also have to suffer through a brainfuck/perl syntax and a hostile programming style. Success seems impossible.
Hoon is very much not designed to be apparently usable, it is designed to be actually usable. Personally, I find it to be one of the most usable languages I've ever used.
There are about a hundred runes (digraphs) in Hoon, but you mostly see only 10 or 15. Also, they're organized by internal structure (all | runes do the same kind of thing), and most runes are macros which resolve to about 20 built-in forms. It's a couple of orders of magnitude easier than learning Chinese, which again may be a good thing or a bad thing.
Variable names designed to be memorable rather than meaningful are pretty normal in both math and functional programming. Math uses Greek letters for the same purpose, for instance. Also, as we note explicitly, this is a style that's optimal for simple code - in any language, you'd probably write add(a, b), not add(left_argument, right_argument).
Actually, Perl originally won because it was easy to get things done. It's had problems since, but for different reasons...
Don't worry, we'll put up some ropes...
I'm partial to calling it "Chinese Lisp" - Hoon runes are converted directly into AST nodes, but instead of using friendly words it uses weird diagraphs. The fact that the runes are grouped into families makes it much simply, however. You don't have to know what "|*" does exactly, just know that all runes that start with bar (|) create the equivalent of functions, so it has to be related to that. Instead of memorizing 100+ runes that are all completely different from eachother, most of them are just variants of others and are even macros to other runes.
While it may look like garbage, programs such as a brainfuck vm[1] are easy to scan when you can get the gist of the program structure very easily.
While some of the names are quite a pain, a good portion of the stdlib's arms are teniously named related to their subject, or are very easily grouped with their function. snag is index, scag is prefix, slag is suffix.[2] The docs for the stdlib, along with examples of how to use it, are shipped with every planet at http://localhost:8080/home/tree/pub/doc/hoon/library, although the initial page generation takes a bit. I'm not that big of a fan of the CVC variable names, however.
1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/chc4/sample-apps/master/bf... 2: http://doznec.urbit.org/home/tree/pub/doc/hoon/library/2b#-s...
'For example, %= sounds like "centis" rather than "percent equals." Since even a silent reader will subvocalize, the length and complexity of the sound is a tax on reading the code.' This is great. Clever how some of the sounds are reminiscent of existing readings.
Actually, no. I don't.
> "Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid.
Right; so I'm not subvocalising.
> But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain...
Well, sure. I see the symbol 'cat' and both the memory-complex representing a cat and the audio complex representing the spoken version of the symbol will be activated. That's how memory associations work. The written version of the symbol and the spoken version of the symbol will be strongly associated, because they represent the same concept.
But that doesn't mean I have to wait for the audio to finish playing before I move on to the next symbol. That's a misconception of what's actually happening.
(Plus, of course, hardly anyone reads a word at a time. It's nearly always complete phrases. Frequently not even in the right order.)
> If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable.
Well, no. Poetry is mostly intended to be read aloud; it's supposed to be subvocalised. It's unrelated to prose (or computer programs).
Most people do read poetry silently, in the same way they read prose (I don't literally subvocalize), and the sound still is everything. Try reading these two poems silently:
http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disa... http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174183
I'm sorry, that's simply not true. At least for me. It may be true for you.
From the things you've said, I suspect you're a word-at-a-time reader, treating words as a sequential symbol stream, processing them as if they were speech. This is just one of the several different styles of reading. Others exist.
I am, as I mentioned above, a phrase-at-a-time reader. I take in multiple symbols at a time, and not necessarily in sequence. If I had to think through the audio of a phrase, this simply wouldn't work. It also means that I would be unable to read symbols that didn't have an audio equivalent.
Right now I'm working with Smalltalk. One of its operators is ~~. How is this pronounced? Don't know, don't care. It's just ~~. When I perceive it, I don't perceive 'tilde tilde'; it's a ~~.
(Also, if you aren't reading Scotland's worst poet aloud, you are wasting him.)
Compare the way you perceive "~~" to the way you perceive "++". I hear these as "sig sig" and "lus lus". (Or rather, as "slus," because that's a further Hoon abbreviation, but never mind.) You don't hear the former at all; but you hear the latter as "plus plus," don't you?
This is because "tilde tilde" is so heavy your brain doesn't want to do the work of hearing it out. But overriding that connection doesn't save energy, which is why you do hear "plus plus." Your brain has to think the very complicated little thought, "squiggle I don't want to pronounce." It would much rather have a sound.
It's torture enough to read McGonagall silently. Out loud? Who would try that? It's tantamount to suicide.
I really do not. A short silence, both of them. I suppose it depends on how you normally code. I have never had a need for speaking out code and am not well versed in it.
This is especially true of code and symbols. For example, consider this poem
> is it already too dark > to play tennis with a racket > i asked? > while I code with [
and contrast with this one
> The house filled with laughter > from mother and daughter > Both were fiends > but neither friends
or even better, combine the two
> I never used a ~ > as well as Oscar Wilde
And the weird thing is that the little silences where symbols should go are all completely distinct.
IPFS is solving a different problem -- it's a storage network, not a personal server. IPFS is more comparable to Freenet or BitTorrent. Urbit is more comparable to Sandstorm, although of course they're technically very different.
I guess Urbit is more of an 'operating environment' that allows applications to be built, then?
IPFS stores and serves your data; so does Dropbox, Cloudflare, etc. In a sense the best way to see IPFS is as a distributed CDN, of course with an immutable namespace that actually works.
Urbit is [de|para|un]-centralized, with each node capable of independent (possibly antagonistic) action.
It's pretty much designed to be as hard to understand as possible.
Look at the source/demo videos - it seems like it's designed to be obfuscated.
https://github.com/urbit/urbit
http://urbit.org/preview/~2015.9.25/materials/part-i
Personally, I can't get over the really made up words.
The idea of having new names for everything is that when you use a name you've already seen before in another context, you carry forward any ideas you have about things with that name based on their implementations in those other languages.
There's a specific meaning for the words that are used for the introductory language concepts: arm, gate, battery, sample, core, rune, glyph, ... twig, jet, and so on.
Many of these are either new concepts, or new arrangements of old concepts. A gate is not a lambda or a function, neither is a core, and if either were called those things anyone who hadn't seen them explained before would probably go ahead and take the big word to their nearest search engine, only to become even more confused by idiosyncratic and sometimes conflicting explanations of those ideas that appear slightly differently in hundreds of other languages.
I think that Hoon hopes to be the first programming language for a lot of people one day, so they won't usually be coming expecting familiar things to have familiar names.
I couldn't find a good source quickly, but it's mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida#Criticism_from...
Edit: In the early Urbit docs [8] there was a nigh ad nauseam emphasis on the "stupidity" of the project. What the epiphany of careful inspection revealed was that this stupidity was not that of intellectual deficiency, but rather opposition to "cleverness" of the kind that tends to foster (and infest) Urbit's peer group of deep stack [9] rebuilds. One of the most insightful comments I've heard after springing Urbit on unsuspecting PL professionals was (paraphrased): "It [Urbit] does all the things we've said we wanted, in the worst possible way." All words are equally made up until grounded in referents. The question is, are the Worfian shorthands new words provide worth the cost [10] of expanding the symbol table, as compared to the interpretation overhead of translating new concepts into old? Under the burden of internalizing all the content linked below and more, I judge new vocabulary justified.
[0] http://www.ucombinator.org/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_rewriting_system (ARS being the most mechanical of the pure computational models outside reversible logic)
[2] http://tunes.org/wiki/symmetric_20lisp.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_chaining
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula-2#Description (see Definition/Implementation modules)
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking
[6] http://netcentriccomputing.org/
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security (not yet fully implemented)
[8] http://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/moron-lab-goals-princip...
[9] I won't say full stack, because the reshaping blade only penetrates OS deep. For a hardware-grounded reset, see good old Loper OS (http://www.loper-os.org/?p=8).
[10] Because words are context dependent, this expansion is only logarithmic with respect to the increase of immediately referable concept space.
Hopefully the tractability of the number base will help bootstrap your familiarity with the ASCII alt-names. When you've poked around Urbit enough to see the ideas described in the link storm above, I would be very interested in discussing them with you (or even to discuss them in a general, non-Urbit context, both are standing offers).
>In 1985 it seemed completely natural and inevitable that, by 2015, everyone in the world would have a network computer. Our files, our programs, our communication would all go through it.
>When we got a video call, our computer would pick up. When we had to pay a bill, our computer would pay it. When we wanted to listen to a song, we'd play a music file on our computer. When we wanted to share a spreadsheet, our computer would talk to someone else's computer. What could be more obvious? How else would it work? . . .
>The Internet didn't scale into an open, high-trust network of personal servers. It scaled into a low-trust network that we use as a better modem — to talk to walled-garden servers that are better AOLs. We wish it wasn't this way. It is this way.
This is the problem Urbit aspires to solve: Why does everything suck? Why aren't we living in the future we were promised in 1985, where everything is easy because all software plays nice together? Why do we have a planetary series of Rube Goldberg machines instead of the fun version of the Borg?
The answer is that we've been building everything on top of leaky abstraction, piling band-aids on top of band-aids instead of just starting with a stable foundation. Urbit's solution is to replace every OS, file system, and communications protocol on Earth with a single application: Urbit.
The project is meant to be the biggest pain in the ass ever. It's an attempt to fix everything that is wrong with computers by rebooting the entire information age.
The beauty is that it doesn't all have to happen at once. Urbit can function like a kernel for all non-Urbit systems: They get to call Urbit to receive its super-reliable data, but it never makes system calls so they can't inject side effects into the shiny new Urbit ecosystem. Over time, if Urbit works as intended, it will assimilate everything else.
Once you understand the stakes, Nock and Hoon no longer look like cruel jokes. It would be madness to expect coders to invest all that effort to learn 'just another language.' It's only pseudo-madness to make the same demands while promising that their code will still work a million years from now, because all computers will still be running Urbit.
Instead of caviling about details like how to pronounce the code when reading it aloud, let's delve into the issues that really matter:
I. Does modern computing suffer from a leaky abstraction problem that needs to be solved?
II. If so, is the solution to build an overlay network that provides a global static functional namespace?
III. If so, is Urbit a viable implementation of that solution?
IV. If so, what is the likelihood of Urbit reaching the critical mass necessary for mass adoption?
The last question is the one that interests me the most. In order to overcome the massive inertia behind legacy computing, Urbit needs a killer app: Something that exploits the new system's intrinsic advantages to accomplish feats that were previously impossible.
So... uh... Any suggestions?
A new network has no Metcalfe's law effect by definition. So an important early skill is parasitizing existing networks...
Urbit seems to take the total counterpoint of this advice, and I wonder whether it's a good idea.
What I don't get is what it is trying to achieve. The stated goal are too abstract. What are some use-cases? Is it really necessary to scrap the whole OS and languages to achieve these goals?
I do sympathize with the idea of rewriting everything from scratch, and I too feel that "almost everything is terrible" in software-land. But I doubt rewriting everything without having a firm grasp on the underlying issues is the way to go. It it a fun exercise, and inspiring besides, but I'm unsure it can be more than that.
There's certainly plenty of code in this world that's the same for the sake of being the same. It's not terribly interesting to use CGA graphics for the sake of being different. On the other hand, I do wonder whether my children will grow up learning 1970s programming for the sake of being the same.
>We should note that in Nock and Hoon, 0 (pronounced “yes”) is true, and 1 (“no”) is false. Why? It’s fresh, it’s different, it’s new. And it’s annoying. And it keeps you on your toes. And it’s also just intuitively right.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
I actually got this bad idea from Unix: !strcmp(), etc. It's certainly easier to overload error codes into a 0=true scheme, although Urbit doesn't actually do that.
Why is it intuitively right?
0 is true, everything else is false. At least that's my intuition.
Urbit has brilliant technical insight into perhaps the hardest problem our industry currently faces: why does everything always turn into a big ball of mud?
Urbit may turn out to be incredibly important. Parent comment is unjustified, uninformed, poor tone and ad hominem.
I think pretty much anything but the most fly-by-night data centers use parity memory, but I'm always concerned by the failure to spend a couple extra bucks on chicken wire for EMP shielding. The Carrington event actually did happen.
"This paper studied the incidence and characteristics of DRAM errors in a large fleet of commodity servers. Our study is based on data collected over more than 2 years and covers DIMMs of multiple vendors, generations, technolo- gies, and capacities. All DIMMs were equipped with error correcting logic (ECC) to correct at least single bit errors"
from conclusion 1.
"The conclusion we draw is that error correcting codes are crucial for reducing the large number of memory errors to a manageable number of uncorrectable errors. In fact, we found that platforms with more powerful error codes (chip- kill versus SECDED) were able to reduce uncorrectable er- ror rates by a factor of 4–10 over the less powerful codes."
DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study : http://research.google.com/pubs/pub35162.html
I'm not sure what I gave was a middlebrow dismissal; it was just terse. I find Urbit unserious. I think that's unfortunate, because someone should do a serious, pragmatic overlay network.
My terse highbrow dismissal: separating the programming environment from the protocol results in serious, pragmatic problems. For instance: protocols specified in English, in which messages are validated by hand and not by a type system.
The inflexibility of the Internet service model is a serious problem. Poor formal methods for verifying protocols is a serious (albeit not lucrative) problem. Programming languages that make it difficult to express correct programs: serious problem. It is not clear to me how the solution to all three of those problems is the same startup.
Building a building: hard problem. Building 1/3 of a building: impossible problem. Building a cow: hard problem. Building 1/3 of a cow: impossible problem.
I'm also in favor of a single system that solves a bunch of problems than a hodgepodge nightmare. That was the vision behind NLS, the Mother of All Demos, SmallTalk, Plan9 etc. And Doug Engelbart can be found favoring the easy to master but complex at first glance approach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeSgaJt27PM instead of the easy to get started approach of Mac GUIs that won out. The problem arises when the system makes too many weird decisions and people fork it to make their own all encompassing systems. Then it takes forever for crippled versions of these system to be adopted. It doesn't help when even the niche audience is divided. Things that can be disagreed on should be minimized.
So there is no technical need to throw the complex at first glance syntax at new users these days. You could convert it to a more verbose syntax and back again.
Terse syntax looks clean and easy to scan when you use it daily. But what if you don't? Then it's not self documenting, you have to look up commands to read code. If I don't use command line for a few months, I remember the basics like mkdir, ls, cd but I forget the nuances like ls -a and the billion other options. So it becomes a chore of looking things up constantly. Could be fixed with natural language autocomplete for writing code, but not reading. If you considered such use cases, you wouldn't be so sure about the terse syntax.
So many made up words are also asking too much. They'll certainly be worth learning if the system is proven. Haskell has it's own way of doing things, does a lot of things well, but seems to make many things difficult in practice. So it remains a niche that very few learn beyond the surface curiosities. Same for APL, J and K.
And I wrote most of this before seeing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10280348
It might be the case that you will get synergistic effects and/or Urbit's vision isn't possible without solving multiple problems. But it could equally be you've bitten off more than you could chew by choosing to work on multiple orthogonal problems.
Of course if you have new concepts they need a name of their own. But that only applies if all the new concepts really are new. If they are the same old concepts, use the same old commonly understood name. If they are somewhat different, use a derived name, like "Big Potatoes". They are LIKE potatoes, but they are really big. If they are totally different, try to invent a name that EXPLAINS THEM BY COMBINING the names of previously existing concepts. How many people program in "BrainFuck" and get paid for it? There must be a reason that there are not so many professional brainfuck programmers around. Nevertheless I applaud this project for thinking outside the box, if that is possible they have done it.
Once you've built a system that's both a protocol and an OS, you realize that putting an abstraction barrier between them is like building a cow by building two halves of the cow, then sewing them together. It's incredibly hard and the resulting cow doesn't work very well.
Take a problem like identity. Is this an OS problem, or a protocol problem? Earlier I mentioned validation of message / content types. Is this an OS problem, or a protocol problem? Is the spinal column part of the cow-frontend, or the cow-backend?
These are just the most obvious examples. For instance, the standard way of building protocols assumes that message processing isn't transactional, and the OS is a dual-level store that loses its mind all the time. If your OS is a single-level store, you can essentially use persistent sessions. Which means you can get exactly-once messaging. Which is a very desirable feature that's impossible to achieve if you assume that the endpoints can lose their minds.
So the appropriate comparison is: build the front-end of a cow, and stitch it to the back end of an alligator, creating the mighty alligow; or, build a whole cow.
Granted, Urbit isn't perfect and I'd hardly call it done, but the whole stack (counting apps!) is only 25K lines of code. So the "whole cow" doesn't seem appalling. The alligow -- I wouldn't even try.
So yeah, I find it frustrating that Urbit insists that an overlay network is "half the cow", and that to have a "whole cow", we must also adopt an excruciatingly idiosyncratic bespoke programming language.
Mostly, for me, this is coming from a place of deep respect for the concept and potential of overlay networks, and of frustration with designs that seem to sabotage that potential in order to make philosophical/political statements.
(That's my only attachment to Urbit as a thing worth discussing; by way of bona fides:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:tptacek%20overlay%20net...)
But 1980s? Not to make it personal, but I finished Brown in 1992 and dropped out of Berkeley in 1994 (where I arguably invented ASLR [0], though the basic idea was Larry Peterson's) My field was OS in general and networking in specific, I took Mark Weiser's ubiquitous computing seminar from Mark Weiser, and if there are pieces of paper entitling me to talk about anything, it's '80s networking. "And you, sir, are no '80s networking."
'80s networking as I remember it: at Brown, it was all about TCP/IP versus OSI and crap like that. At Berkeley, the emphasis was more on ATM. And crap like that. Congestion control algorithms, like garbage collection, can be invented indefinitely. Frankly, the only thing more boring and irrelevant than '80s networking: '90s networking. At least in the '80s people still wrote new transport layers and stuff, in the vain delusion that they might get adopted.
And at least in the '90s they still invented their own IETF application-layer protocols that got deployed, or that you could imagine getting deployed. Like that great winner, XMPP. (I spent a particularly depressing afternoon as a fly on the wall in a pre-XMPP working group at some IETF in '97 or '98.) And ACAP? Wherefore art thou, ACAP? And all the calendaring stuff? Various bits of things that were designed to be open networks got fitted into various proprietary protocols of the 2000s.
(Nothing is ever new in CS, and if you're a grad student looking for new ideas about networking, this pattern suggests that the best place to look is '60s and '70s papers. Have fun digging! Or does no one do that these days, either?)
So anyway, we were talking about cows. I get it. You're not interested in cows, only in cow heads. Obviously I share your feelings about cow heads. Love 'em.
So, your problem is: the Internet is full of firewalls and crap. It's a restricted-routing network. This sucks. I remember the Internet when it had no firewalls. You do too. We remember when the Internet was a social network. What is the Internet now? Like we say on the intro page, it's a fing modem, which you use to log in to fing AOL.
So let's create an overlay network with unrestricted routing. Some kind of P2P scheme. (I hope you know Adam Ierymenko's ZeroTier -- he's api on HN. I believe he's basically solved this problem as you define it.)
Great! You have a near-perfect VPN. What else is an overlay network? Have you recreated the Internet as a social network? You know, the Internet that had a distributed Reddit called Usenet -- which, as a digital society, was as far above Reddit as Reddit is above YouTube comments?
Dude, you haven't even come close. All you have is another VPN. Why were those restricted networks put in place? Nobody had a "firewall" when I was at Brown.
To put it another way: what is your overlay network doing? Since you're delegating layer 7 to the OS, you're providing the same basic service as '80s networking, '90s networking, and of course now networking. You're sending datagrams or streams or something between Unix processes on different Unix machines.
For starters, how do you identify these endpoints? A ZeroTier address is an identity in a sense, but it provides no useful information. There's no way to tie it to any identity you're actually interested in.
Who needs a new network for Unix processes to receive data from an effectively infinite set of anonymous untrusted identities?
We already have one of these networks. We call it the Internet. It was a great social network when everyone with an IP address was an institutionally trusted entity. Once that became untrue, we put firewalls on it and it turned into a modem. Anyone can see that this will happen to your overlay network. ZeroTier can be used as a public network or a VPN -- it's a great VPN. With due respect to api, I would focus on that side of the business :-)
But of course there's a bazillion VPNs. You want something different -- you want a cow head. You don't care about the cow body. That's fine. We don't all have to be generalists.
Your theory is: why hasn't someone built a cow head and stitched it onto the alligator body yet? My theory is: (1) if you stitch any head to an alligator and it sticks, it's probably an alligator head; (2) our alligator already has a head, and nothing will be gained by cutting it off and stitching it back on again.
Now, you can see how this process of inferring the rest of the cow goes. You need an identity system, or something, for your network. A PKI. The cow neck. Who holds these identities? Processes on Unix servers? O rly? You're going to infer that person X signed document Y, because person X is connected -- in some way -- to a Unix process with access key to K? Sure, I guess we do that for HTTPS servers, but... for individual human beings?
Ok, you're going to build access to K as a separate component of each application? One keystore per process? Or since it's 2015, per container or whatever? Or the whole computer has access to K? O rly? This is good, this is really good.
So you decide to do what the browser did: create a new opaque layer, above Unix proper and isolated from it, to manage your applications. Imagine if JS "apps" could make system calls through the browser. There'd be no such thing as a Web app. HN would be like a Java applet or something.
An opaque layer (imagine a node that couldn't make system calls, for instance) gives you two wins: it lets you standardize the semantics of a network node precisely, and it lets you run untrusted code with perfect encapsulation. And it offers the even more intriguing possibility of running other peoples' code automagically, which is incredibly useful in a distributed system -- for example, to disseminate protocol validator updates. Thus, "the browser for the server side."
And you go on cow-engineering thus. Until you have the full cow. Then you can drink milk every day and laugh at your strange detour into cow-alligator Frankenstacks.
Do I miss usenet? I have to say I only ever liked it from within emacs, with glowing characters on a black background. Seeing it on a web page, dark on light, is just not the same. Les neiges d'antan
Once upon a time, it was fun to see what you could learn about an IP address that you found in a weblog. Who bothers anymore?
Perhaps it is snowing, in a way that we are too sinful to perceive!
There are plenty of numbers. We could all have one, forever; or until we die, and then we can, like Charlemagne, will them to our children, who will factor them at leisure
That confuses the hell out of me, because I think your plan is brilliant. What gives, broseph?
My only formal CS-education was at summer camp learning Logo when I was nine. In my early 20s, I taught myself LISP from PG's book purely so I could start wasting a few weekends a year coding an urGAI. The first practical coding I've ever done was this year, when I finally bit the bullet and learned Python and Java.
Is your vision convincing to me because I'm clueless about the harsh realities of programming useful things? Or am I able to discern its splendor because I avoided exposure to the false conventional wisdom that blinds other coders to your insights?
If you put a gun to my head, I'd have to pick door number one. Actually, if you put a gun to my head I'd say Urbit was the best thing since Filmer and then apologize for that over-the-top pastiche. But you see my dilemma.
[Edit: Serious question. You came up with Watt/Hoon 5+ years ago, and you claim it's not much harder to use than Lisp. If that's true, where is all the useful Hoon-coded software?
If I gave you five years to write things in Lisp, you could produce an incredible library of offerings... No?]
My address is my first name, followed by the first initial of my last name, then the letter Q.
This obviously makes for slower going, especially near the beginning.
Most of the time since mid 2012 (me for about a year, me and a few other for two for two more) has gone into writing Arvo, a purely functional operating system. Arvo is not enough like anything else to be seen as anything else but research.
This is a fairly typical timeline for CS research. What's unusual is just the depth of the stack. I would also point out that if you look at the normal cost of developing any sort of operating system, even to the alpha level, the metrics are pretty good.
Where the project looks really unproductive is in objective measures of content production. For instance, Nock took me roughly from 2002 to 2008, which is something like a bit and a half of output per day.
Granted, the high-level interface you want to present to the programmer is something like RPC. The two application-level communication paradigms in Urbit are a transactional "poke" and publish-subscribe.
A key difference is that a successful poke (a) contains no return data and (b) is piggybacked on the packet ack. Actually the whole transaction is piggybacked on the packet ack ("single acknowledgment" or "E2E acknowledgment.") Oh yeah, that's another feature that crosses OS/protocol lines.
This lets us produce a particularly non-leaky network abstraction against not procedure/function calls, but Arvo's stacked event calls (if normal events are a lot like GOTOs, Arvo events are more like GOSUBs). So it's not quite RPC. But it's fair to be reminded of RPC.
But at the actual packet layer, a network is a bus for sharing large (but not too large) unsigned integers, which may or may not arrive anywhere. (Network programming is quite a bit easier, by the way, given a bus-width-independent language that can just model packets and blobs as big atoms, then operate on them functionally.)
Effectively, a packet you hear is something that someone said, not something that someone told you to do. Hearing it is learning something. Idempotence at the packet level is crucial, because if someone tells you something twice, it's the same as telling you once. The protocol exists to answer the question: what happens to me if I learn this number?
It's only a short step from here to defining the entire state of an endpoint as a permanently fixed function of the list of numbers you've learned. The computer's state is a function of its packet log. What could be more natural? Why would anyone define a computer in any other way?
But of course, defining a computer as a pure function of its packet history requires you to define its VM and OS as part of defining the protocol.
And a general rule of protocol design is that your chance of achieving a compatible protocol is inversely proportional to the square of the length of the specification. It's also inversely proportional to the extensibility of the protocol.
So you're going to squeeze all of Unix into your RFC? Or even all of JS, bless its soul? And again, you wind up looking for something like Urbit. You may just be interested in the cow head, but you can't get to it without building the whole cow.
I have been wondering, are you familiar with Project Xanadu and Ted Nelson's work in general? Project Xanadu took a "whole cow" approach to building a network centered around publishing documents and linking between them. The stated goals for Urbit and Xanadu seem to overlap [1] enough that Xanadu would be easier to implement on top of Urbit than on top of anything else. It could then be Urbit's superior alternative to the World Wide Web for publishing hypertext documents. Last year I emailed Nelson asking whether he knew about Urbit (secretly hoping he might already be working with or for you) but he replied he didn't.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu#Original_17_rul...
No, they do not.
General purpose computers, as such, are useless and boring. They are only useful when converted into one or more appliances. Modern OSes are very good at this. Cloud general purpose compute exists. Its niche to the community of appliance builders, because nobody has any use for it directly.
The argument of the whitepaper is that our current internet and Unix environment does not allow for anything else than a cloud with lots of special-purpose appliances, but that does not mean this is the desirable situation, neither for the appliance builders nor for their users.