The King is Dead!? Long live... Scala? Clojure?!
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Variables use.
Next: faster?
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 1 Nov 2009 10:03 On 2009-10-31 23:04:01 -0400, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: > It's 2009. Isn't the web the only OS worth thinking about? Yes, because now that it's 2009 we don't have to worry about doing anything resource intensive on the client - it can all be done on the server, in the "cloud," because we have unlimited, free, wireless bandwidth. oh, wait... [granted there are *many* things which can be done in the cloud, but not everything] -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: dan on 1 Nov 2009 10:23 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2009-10-31 23:04:01 -0400, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: > >> It's 2009. Isn't the web the only OS worth thinking about? > > Yes, because now that it's 2009 we don't have to worry about doing > anything resource intensive on the client - it can all be done on the > server, in the "cloud," because we have unlimited, free, wireless > bandwidth. A valid point, as I am reminded every time I try to browse the web from my phone, but that aside: the "web as OS" relies for much of its whizzbangery on client-side computation, and the platform there is more or less whatever the browser manufacturers deign to ship (javascript and friends). And while you can have all the storage you like (subject to bandwidth, latency, traffic limits, caps, shaping, route flapping, ...) you can't rely on client-side compute cycles being cheap. -dan
From: Anti Vigilante on 1 Nov 2009 11:42 On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 10:03 -0500, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2009-10-31 23:04:01 -0400, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> said: > > > It's 2009. Isn't the web the only OS worth thinking about? > > Yes, because now that it's 2009 we don't have to worry about doing > anything resource intensive on the client - it can all be done on the > server, in the "cloud," because we have unlimited, free, wireless > bandwidth. > > oh, wait... > > [granted there are *many* things which can be done in the cloud, but > not everything] > Not just that. We are also losing our technologies to a few technocrats. So you use it or lose it which means we have to plant the platform back on the client. We have to end the client/server model and replace it with a peer model which is ranked by the expertise of the peermaster (guy on your block that knows 'puters). If we do not do this, Lisp, UNIX, the WEB, everything you know and use will collapse and be sucked back into the universities and defense contractors. Businesses will lease everything from them. These people do not like our kind playing here.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 2 Nov 2009 16:35 On 2009-11-01 10:23:48 -0500, dan(a)telent.net said: > And while you can have all the storage you like (subject to > bandwidth, latency, traffic limits, caps, shaping, route flapping, ...) > you can't rely on client-side compute cycles being cheap. But you can often rely on client side compute cycles being faster and cheaper than doing the computation on the server and having to send the (rather large) result over a slow, unreliable, expensive connection (for example, 3G or shared 802.11x). -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: dan on 3 Nov 2009 06:41
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > On 2009-11-01 10:23:48 -0500, dan(a)telent.net said: > >> And while you can have all the storage you like (subject to >> bandwidth, latency, traffic limits, caps, shaping, route flapping, ...) >> you can't rely on client-side compute cycles being cheap. > > But you can often rely on client side compute cycles being faster and > cheaper than doing the computation on the server and having to send > the (rather large) result over a slow, unreliable, expensive > connection (for example, 3G or shared 802.11x). Certainly, if you're talking about image processing or somesuch. SVG and Flash are good examples. But in general, you still can't trust the answer - would you install a shopping basket system where the "total cost plus shipping" field was calculated client-side? -dan |