"I See What You Mean" by Peter Alvaro

[@coolsebz]

This is one of those talks that makes me google for a few hours to barely get to the meat of the ideas presented! Really awesome stuff!

[@bonnydonny]

Wow, that was a mind-bender! Great talk. Looking at abstractions like time and the messy stuff that distributed systems give us will someday, hopefully, at UCSC first, make reasoning easy and natural. I suggest reading Stephen Toulmin on the philosophy side of the topic. He shows where/how the original problem of hiding abstractions took us down the wrong road. Glad to see Peter Alvaro working on re-integrating the world with new languages and respectful design. Bravo!

[@jjurksztowicz]

Computation is rendezvous of ephemera... nice.

[@thomas.moerman]

It's almost stand-up comedy fused with hardcore tech.. great talk!

[@420_gunna]

This talk gave me a nosebleed, two thumbs up

[@OmyTrenav]

Great talk! Very educational.

[@valtih1978]

Extremely profound guy. Almost like Michael Parenti in politics.

[@danielfava]

Awesome!

[@HenkPoley]

There's a talk from this same conference about the briefly mentioned "Eve" here : kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4eUqqGMrtqXaq8

[@VladyYakovenko]

terrific talk

[@clementdato6328]

One that confused me is that he talked about Datalog using examples only reading data, which is actually quite easy even for usual languages. Difficult part seems to be that the order of the sequence needs to be guaranteed, mostly because of side effects of some sorts. Am I missing something?

[@DmitryRomanov]

Based on prolog college course, you just add an additional requirement "this is executed before/after that", and the engine (here it is called optimizer) will find the proper call order you want.

[@DmitryRomanov]

25:55 prolog students cry here 🙈

[@arhyth]

i wonder how long before this or at least the ideas here gets seen in production distributed systems.

[@HenkPoley]

It seems like Bloom had some development for a while, but nothing after 2017. github.com/bloom-lang

[@supersearch]

A distributed secure system wold be similar to a blockchain system. It's must not support data deletion nor data updates. It must be a purely constructive system. A deletion must be just a new annotation about a state of some data. But this type of system may grow much, so we can keep the chain of changes but in the memory work with a limited version with only the current data for better performance. But the construction of new data based on old data must also be perfectly deterministic...

[@chromosundrift]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that blockchains provide "the god line" and this is how they solve this fundamental distributed system problem?

[@jakedewey3686]

Blockchain doesn't really solve the problem here. What happens when two different systems disagree on who extended the chain first? You just run into the same problem all over again, because you'd need to figure out how to deal with the asynchrony of block creation. The goal isn't to create an external system to synchronize your other systems; it's to make it so there's no need to synchronize at all, because your systems are guaranteed to behave the way you expect.