angleofrepose

There has been so much innovation over the years around transpilers/compilers to JS, it makes me wonder what a programming paradigm of à la carte first class language functionality could look like and how it might interoperate. A system in which I might grab Haskell type syntax, Clojure list comprehensions and JS arrow functions, all together, and all working just fine.

Probably want to break up files into more granular chunks, probably more like next gen polyglot notebooks beyond a cell per language and more like custom languages composed of features in any given cell.

The system could be made to translate between functionality based on editor preference. Like python list comprehensions? Read my Clojure comprehension in that syntax.

I know this would not perfectly map, as some language functionality is more powerful than others. Still interesting to think about.

> until you have the full factory going you won't be able to fully estimate your actual numbers, much less come up with all the sequential small improvements that build on each other.

Why not? Is there a theory or school of management or industry that establishes this foundational principle that seems so commonly invoked? It feels true, but I don't really know why it might be true. There must also be great examples of counterpoints in this too!

Maybe it goes back to learn by doing: it's a common refrain in outdoor recreation that safety rules are written in blood; that many of our guidelines directly follow from bad things that happened. But certainly we can also design safety rules by thinking critically about our activities. Learn by doing vs theory.

We have silicon solar modules in the 1950s, Moore's law in the 1960s. Another take on the question then: today we use Moore's law to describe progress in solar modules, to what extent was that realization possible in the 1960s from the fundamentals, or "first principles"?

If it was clear, why did we not see rapid prioritization of solar and energy storage technology research? Or did we and I don't know the actual history? Or what influences am I undervaluing or not recognizing?

If it wasn't clear, why not? Gaming out many positive impacts of solar technology feels easy today in a way it appears was not easy in the past. Why wasn't it clear in the past?

I like to think about "learn by doing". While I have of course lived it, I try to think of counterpoints. It seems clear that solar owes it's growth to Germany and California policies which subsidized the global solar industry with taxes on their economies, most disproportionately placed on individual ratepayers. But why couldn't solar research have been long-term funded based on it's fundamental value? Talk about national security, or geopolitical stability -- especially post 1970s! Skip the intermediate and expensive buildouts of the 2000s, failed companies heavily subsidized and fund research instead to hopefully bring the late 2010s forward in time?

What's a good model here, or concrete example? We see the same side of the history in electric vehicles. I think Tesla and Rivian, to pick two, both lost money on every sale in early years. Why not skip that expensive step in company history, and develop better products to sell at a profit from the beginning of mass manufacturing? Are there industries or technologies where this expensive/slow process went the other way?

I heard an interesting argument somewhere that solar cells are an ideal manufactured good. Whether you are building a module for a calculator or a GW scale plant, the modules are the same. This is fundamentally different for steam turbines. On the "concrete-internal combustion engine" spectrum of complexity, solar modules are closer to concrete and turbines are closer to ICEs.

Shouldn't this have led to a special interest in advancing solar module research? Or widespread understanding that eventually the unique set of attributes that define a solar module would lead to it's takeover of a significant portion of global energy generation? Shouldn't that have been apparent from the earliest days of photovoltaic research as a sort of philosophical truth before the advances in material science, extraction or manufacturing of the last fifty years?

I'm less interested in blame than in a systems analysis of how in the last half century powerful players seem to have missed the opportunity to start earlier investment in solar and battery technology. Solar and batteries are unique in energy infrastructure, as even any casual observer knows by now, and is certain to change many aspects of politics, industry and culture. It seems an inevitability that energy infrastructure will evolve from large complex components towards small and simple components, and I'm interested in engaging with the history of why "now" is the moment, rather than decades ago.

It’s been a few years since I seriously looked at options for my personal use, but I remember being quite disappointed in the options I found. Zotero and org-noter seemed two of the best (though in completely different ways) pieces of software I could find regarding reading or organizing pdfs. I trialed OneNote for a year and liked it in the moment, but zero support for navigation or discovery or review of information make it untenable for building a knowledge base or doing literature review.

I imagine that software which makes reading and connecting document information (in any form: pdf, html, video or other) could be so much better than what I use daily.

I don’t know why macros are approached with apprehension. As I briefly get at in my first comment, I’m aware of a lot of dismissals of macros as a tool, but those dismissals don’t make sense to me in context. I’m missing some backstory or critical mind-share tipping points in the history of the concept.

What could be a good set of sources to understand the background perspective with which TC39 members approach the concept of macros?

I’m aware of much conversation around dismissing macros, often in the context of bad dev experience — but this sounds like a shallow dismissal to me.

At the end of the day, we have some of the results of macros in the JavaScript ecosystem, but rather than being supported by the language they are kicked out to transpilers and compilers.

Can anyone point me to authoritative sources discussing macros in JavaScript? I have a hard time finding deep and earnest discussion around macros by searching myself.

Why do you post it here? What do you think about the book?

I'm interested in hearing what you think are some of the more difficult problems or bugs you've come across during development. Did you hit any stumbling blocks around handling user code or integrating babel or the terminal? Do you have any insights about preventing errors or crashes in how you parse and eval user code? (My typical test of a while(true) loop crashes this system, but you're still in good company; it crashes replit, browser dev tools, observable and just about every other clientside execution tool I've come across. The most popular solution appears to be the loop timeout transformation.)

I think the examples pages do a better than usual job of demonstrating your system, in particular the ubiquity of one liners and your connections between them. Do you have ideas or responses about the classic "mess of wires" critique that graphical coding systems inevitably receive?

This is such a fun domain to think about, thanks for sharing your work!

OS implementations dont solve the halting problem. I agree with the sibling comment.