| Homepage | https://eric.place |
| Homepage | https://eric.place |
@david_chisnall @AmenZwa @JamesWidman
Good point! Brings up an interesting question about where to start for novel computing -- do you make a new kind of architecture and then see what kinds of way higher level environments can emerge, or do you go in the reverse order?
Lately I've been thinking about Dale Schumacher's uFork project, and what kinds of higher level environments might become more feasible atop such a system
@david_chisnall @AmenZwa @JamesWidman
What are your thoughts on STEPS? There were some interesting insights in that project about what it might take to replicate the "desktop" experience (hardware aside).
But yeah, commercial viability is going to be the limiting factor. As it stands, capitalism likes a specific kind of free software and everything is molded around it
I meant "compatibility" more in terms of the "abstract machine portability" David was describing above.
A totally new computing system can get a long way by speaking standards like TCP/IP and being able to parse common formats like XML, etc, etc., _without_ having to be a unix at all, or having anything to do with C.
@david_chisnall @AmenZwa @JamesWidman
Taking a step back: do we need this kind of compatibility today? Unlike the 80s when we had that explosion of different holistic but incompatible systems, today we have widely adopted open standards for data and communications formats. This is an advantage that implementers simply didn't have back then. It grants the possibility of making a totally new kind of computing system from the ground up