These are chat archives for jdubray/sam

25th
Sep 2017
devin ivy
@devinivy
Sep 25 2017 01:17
i didn't know about your situation @jdubray but i am very glad you are feeling healthier! :hand:
Jean-Jacques Dubray
@jdubray
Sep 25 2017 04:30
@robsiera sorry, I think I miss labeled it.
I don't think I had a plan to use vuex at that point
@devinivy thank you.
Jean-Jacques Dubray
@jdubray
Sep 25 2017 05:39
An old acquaintance dragged me in a microservice discussion this past week, I know we talk a lot about front-end here, but if you are ever involved in a back-end architecture, I cannot emphasize enough how important this (i.e. my) post on that topic is. If there is one thing I am certain in Software Engineering, it's that one: https://www.ebpml.org/blog15/2016/08/services-apis-and-microservices-part-2/
Jean-Jacques Dubray
@jdubray
Sep 25 2017 07:10
@maxime1992 another important aspect of "my journey" is this quadrant

Something interesting comes up when you create a classification of software building blocks along two axes:

1/ How rich the conceptual foundation: monadic (single concept, e.g. Class or Function), polyadic (Multi-concept, e.g. DSL)
2/ How much "code" you can express: anemic (none), cogent (any amount)

Jean-Jacques Dubray
@jdubray
Sep 25 2017 07:17
What is clear to me is that the conceptual foundation of programming languages is too naive (i.e. to monadic). That's why we keep building frameworks. The question I am trying to answer with SAM is "aren't we missing something?", can we augment that conceptual foundation to reduce the cognitive overload of frameworks (aka polyadism). Pushed to an extreme (Domain Specific Languages), it's clear that polyadism does not work.
My conclusion today is that the right balance is STAR (State, Type, Action and Relations). A programming language cannot reify these four concepts behind a monadic conceptual foundation (Type, Function, Stream, ...). Conversely, there is also no point in pushing the polyadism behind these four concepts.
Victor Noël
@victornoel
Sep 25 2017 07:49
@jdubray so ideally, we would have a STAR-based programming language and the only abstractions we would build on top of it are things related to the domain of your application?
Jean-Jacques Dubray
@jdubray
Sep 25 2017 13:50
@victornoel that's what I believe is possible and desirable. If I were smarter, I'd take on that direction, but that's above my pay grade. IMHO, frameworks exist because the current foundation of programming languages would make it too hard to build the same thing without the framework, reshape the foundation and all the frameworks may go away, not just front-end, but literally all of them.
It's really not about FP vs OOP vs RP vs XYZ
That debates leads nowhere
Victor Noël
@victornoel
Sep 25 2017 14:21
:)