So will my web server handle HTTP 1.1, SPDY, and HTTP Next then?
Is Mozilla acting in the interest of the Open Web or was this a bargaining chip with their $300M default search provider deal?
712 karma · joined March 19, 2009
Is Mozilla acting in the interest of the Open Web or was this a bargaining chip with their $300M default search provider deal?
Mozilla Corp: Wholly 0wned Subsidiary of Google Inc
Closures in JS are broken due to everything being a reference cell by default. This causes closures to be annoying to construct correctly and more expensive than they should be. "Functional" languages typically treat mutation as a side-effect and require reference cells to be explicitly declared. This helps enforce function purity and referential transparency -- functional-ness.
"Being careful about recursion" is like being careful about looping except recursive expressions are a superset of succinct iterative expressions making Javascript weak when it comes to, say, describing state machines. Lack of TCO makes Javascript a terrible compile target as CPS is impossible.
Javascript is an ambiguous, unsafe, difficult-to-analyze language. It supports some constructs that look like constructs in functional languages but because it does not enforce any functional or type systemic restrictions, these features are mostly cargo.
If you write a recursive algorithm in Javascript, you pay like O(n) for stack frames. The same iterative algorithm costs O(1) for stack frames. Thus, many developers eschew recursion in favor of iteration. This means that the logical code that developers write could be both mathematically sound and run efficiently on the machine but instead developers must either resort to temporal reasoning or perform recursion -> iteration transforms in their heads. This is broken.
Just because Javascript is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's good. I don't understand Javascript evangelists -- they seem to be spreading half-truths.
By removing the walls between the silos, Google's centralized data has become immensely more valuable for them and a huge vulnerability for its users.
I am very serious. JavaScript is terrible for analysis and a huge waste on the server-side or mobile. Choosing JavaScript as the metalanguage for an implementation of an HM type system is strange. Why have an HM type system itself written in a type-unsafe way? Why artificially limit the analyzability of the language implementation which is pure and simply string(Roy) -> string(JS)? Roy looks like it has great potential and one of the reasons for that potential is its nascent type system. I want to take my pure Roy function library to ObjC, OCaml, C--, etc.
> I know that compiling languages with completely different semantics to JavaScript is possible (I even maintain http://altjs.org/). But they present two problems:
> 1. They output to ugly JavaScript that is hard to interop with and/or people can't reason about
As I am suggesting that you change your metalanguage for Roy's implementation to something with stronger type safety than JavaScript, I am proposing that you increase the ability for both humans and computers to reason about it. Will you commit to implementing Roy in Roy? Will Roy offer a subset or a superset of the type system of the metalanguage (JavaScript)?
I am super-excited about having a thin, HM type system on top of JS. If I could reason about, contribute, and extend the type-checker and compiler, I would adopt Roy in a heartbeat.
> 2. They need a huge runtime
> The resultant JavaScript you linked to was ~300K.
This is not very big for a 3-D game or a compiler. Most of this is runtime and libraries (type-checked JSON, perhaps?) so application code will increase size relatively slowly.
Again, I am not advocating js_of_ocaml as a replacement for Roy. It fulfills a different role. I would love to write type-checked DOM manipulations in Roy natively and produce tiny JS or HTML!
> Roy takes a different approach and tries to stay semantically close to JavaScript when possible. This is to combat both of the above problems. I'd love to see a Roy example of that demo - I imagine the JavaScript would be a lot more readable and smaller.
Do you support persistent objects? Exhaustive case analysis and polymorphic variants? Will you be able to implement the type-checker correctly and safely in JavaScript? Will your users ever be able to compile their pure Roy code into another functional language? Even if Roy is a subset?
I will actively contribute to your language implementation and use of these tools should you adopt them. With a proper type system, you can change the world. Without a proper type system, we will all suffer and kill ourselves by a thousand cuts.
If you have further doubts about the viability of this approach, see http://ashimagroup.net/demo/game/ooman/tutorial/ for a rigid body motion model in an OCaml WebGL game compiled to JS.
I would love to see a formal specification for the language mapping Roy's syntax to a subset of JS. It would also be nice if the primary implementation were written in OCaml or Haskell. Both of these languages now have very reliable ML->JS compilers and support algebraic data types allowing you to precisely model your object language.
Everything should be immediately copyrighted if you mark it and specify its license terms.
14 years is long enough for total copyright but attribution rights should last forever.
What does private property mean in the domain of bit strings? Why don't 'intellectual property owners' treat their bit strings like other private property and keep it private?
What birthright grants private citizens or their incorporations state-enforced control of combinations of cultural or technical ideas? Do 'intellectual property owners' create their 'property' from nothing? From where do they source their input material? Have they stood on the shoulders of giants, on the broken backs of thousands of generations of ancestors, or are they special, unique snowflakes creating 'intellectual property' in a vacuum from the godhead?
By using the language of Least Power (timbl@w3c.org) that still accomplishes your task, you achieve a more concise and more analyzable document.
I wouldn't call that "nothing to do with TC".
The "but only if the user address assignment is over publicly open radio" concession is for the cafe owner with free wifi or public government-operated access points. I guess free wifi will be the only libre internet access.
It appears that the lawmakers who drafted this legislation do not understand the (in)feasibility of their language or understand all too well the consequences of implementation.
An elected representative is a public servant. Being a representative requires sacrifice. When will we ask our representatives to sacrifice their privacy of communication so that they may represent the people's will more perfectly?
Who is pulling the strings? Are they inside or outside of government?
`(h) Retention of Certain Records- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).'. (b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.
So while I don't like the slipperiness of this slope (or the logic of the argument), the May 25, 2011 text only appears to specify non-radio-transmitted connection records as retained. This means wi-fi, phone, satellite are "safe" where "safe" = "not yet".
As I read it, the authors then make a wish that these records be stored "securely" where "securely" = "no one will ever be liable for a breach".
We seriously need an attribution and karma system for Congress.
AT&T DSL at 6Mbps/1.5Mbps for $40/mo Charter Cable at 60Mbps/?Mbps for $100/mo
I think both plans have caps, though I've never hit them. Charter wouldn't tell me their upload speeds and demanded I give them my SSN so I went with ATT.
The United States does not care about its economic future. It cares about keeping the next quarter's profits up for the corrupt telecom cartel that's turned bribing local governments into a science.