Read the article Ian is specifically saying he can't provide that level of integration. He gives examples like automated uninstall and upgrade as well as management system ( Red Hat Network and Novell ZENworks) as things that still wouldn't work under his scheme.
In other words I'm agreeing with Ian Murdock, what I was arguing LSB would not accomplish he is saying it wouldn't accomplish either even under his scheme.
In other words he agrees with you (as do I) that ISV want to treat Linux and not Debian, RedHat, Suse... as the platform and his feeling is that is possible provided you aim only for self contained apps that don't use the management systems. I agree that is possible.
I read the articles, Ian Murdock is obviously reputable. But the key thing here is he is talking about binary compatibility without integration. In particular not handling things like dependency resolution, not supporting uninstall/upgrade in any clean way, not integrating into Linux configuration tools.....
Yes this is possible. And that is what I've been saying you can have binary compatibility that sorta works and integrate poorly. So I agree with the articles and I agree with everything Murdock said. It may be that you and I are simply defining compatibility differently. IMHO not integrating with all the tools is very similar to when I run a Windows app on a Mac or a Unix app via. cygwin on Windows.
But anyway if that is what you are aiming that I think is possible. Ian is a terrific community leader for almost 15 years.
What would happen is that LabView would contact the distribution and the distribution would create a distribution specific version of LabView for them (possibly at some marginal charge like $500-1000). So you wouldn't use LabView.rpms but rather LabView RH Enterprise, or Enterprise Suse.rpms. This is how for example db2 used to be distributed when IBM was pushing it (before Oracle switched over from Sun).
Most likely some sort of license manager would be needed to use the.rpm or whatever license scheme LabView prefers.
I don't know anything about a2d but integration is easily handled at the distribution level.
The issue is simple. Unix and Linux software are not self contained bundles designed to run in isolation. They assume chains of other related components. However they are flexible in a way that commercial software is not. To for example EndNote which is being discussed has a plug in for Word but not for OpenOffice, Pages, Lotus Word Pro.... Linux users want flexibility. So Linux software allows for flexibility in issues like dynamic linking of libraries to server dependencies to dozens of configurations. But, the distributions differ from one another in how they handle things. As a result configuration files need to be changed in complex ways between distributions.
The alternative would be some sort of unified handling which prevents distributions from being radically different than one another with respect to their core offerings: for example unified configuration managers.
Windows and Mac don't offer this sort of flexibility so they don't experience this type of complexity. They do have a base of standard components and don't offer complex towers of applications supported from different vendors. A good example is looking at Oracle which installs its own webservers and perl under Windows and Mac because it can't be sure of what is there.
While it is certainly possible that binary software directly to the end user might sort of kinda work in the end a system designed for flexibility will never be as uncomplicated as one that is not. For the same reason that Windows gaming is so much more complex than console gaming.
What you want is that something that by and large the Linux rejected early in the 1990s and has never been willing to make the trades for. You have freedom under Linux to get software from outside your distribution you just are expected to be skilled when you do it. The Unix platform that supports good binary compatibility is Solaris and OSX.
No it isn't a miss you are just failing to see why things are the way they are and what would be the consequences of changing them. You want users to have access to software from developers the linux model is distributions take software from developers. There is supposed to be a middle man there.
Under the Linux model end users aren't supposed to be doing this. Labview should be distributed from the distribution not directly to the customer. The problem is Labview doesn't want to offer their software the Linux way, they want to do it the Windows way and that doesn't work so well.
Flash isn't Linux software. It doesn't follow Linux standards. Linux has always had problems with closed source software and probably always will. The model for Linux is open source, binary compatibility is a low priority even if you follow things like LSB.
Where Linux systems kicks but is integration of open source packages. What open packages do you use that you had trouble using under windows?
This argument has been on/. for the last dozen years. The Microsoft / Sun model of software distribution is: software creater -> reseller / OEM -> customer which allows for commerce. The Linux model is: creator -> distribution -> customer which allows for an integrated and functional system. There is no reason to bring to free software a distribution model intended for software sales.
The government could hire librarians to organize the data. This is are a group of people highly trained in how to take large quantities of non standard data and organize it in a way that people can find what they want.
Right, so that fits with my understanding. Given an operation F, you pass in some state, the operation is performed, and the output is a modified state (eg, the cursor is moved to the next line, etc). So the state is the monad?
No. Remember you asked me how to use monads. Trying to understand them is what makes them hard. Now image the language would take any block of code and automatically append the extra float to all the data structures. That's the state monad. That is the State monad / Random number monad is the monad that appends that extra float to all your data structures and makes sure all your functions pass them back properly so you don't have to write any code to allow for random numbers. That is you write your code as if you didn't need random numbers and just "lift it" via. the monad.
Remember in Haskell there is no "then". You are not assured when things happen (except for ordering monads like I/O). You simply tell it function f needs values a,b, and c computed and it is none of your business what gets computed when. The state monad / random number monad will take care of making sure that each generated random number gets used only once behind the scenes. The same way the random function does in your current language.
And in the case of Haskell, where is the state? Is it implicit? Explicit, and I just didn't notice it?
Explicit in the monad but not present in the rest of the code at all.
Incidentally, I still don't think this is terribly intuitive... I've just spent a lot of time trying to "get" it.:)
I think you get it. You just don't believe me yet that it can be this easy.
grumbel already gave an example of stacks. As for the State Monad. Consider the random function. In an imperative language random has a "global variable" which is the last random number and really looks like:
random() new_number = function (last_number) last_number = new_number return new_number
Now it is pretty you could also do if you wanted by making random a function of one variable
random2(float last_number) new_number = function (last_number) return new_number
And then make the calling functions responsible i.e. a = random2(global_last_number) global_last_number = a
Now if you didn't have globals you just append a float "global_last_number" to all your data structures
and then the calls would look like: x.global_last_number = random2(x.global_last_number)
Now image the language would take any block of code and automatically append the extra float to all the data structures. That's the state monad.
The way this would work is that there is a that there would be an array of input. Once a function needed more input then was available the input would "compute" additional information which would be reading a buffer and/or waiting for input. The same way you would in an imperative language. The difference is that all the messy loops happen automagically since in terms of every other function the input has already happened. There is no waiting except in the one I/O routine.
Haskell is a programming language. It makes it easy to work through algorithms that are complicated by giving you tools that are very powerful. So I think it does make it easier to think of algorithms because in practice you put them together piece meal.
Take an example of 8 queens problem. You say well I want solve the n-1 queens problem and then add queens:
queens number_of_queens = qu number_of_queens where
qu 0 = [[]]
qu (m+1) = [ p++[n] | p
Simple. I don't have to work through how to detect conflicts yet.
Then I work out the conflicts code: safe p n = all not [ check (i,j) (m,n) | (i,j) - zip [1..] p ]
where m = 1 + length p
As for your point about demand evaluation (lazy evaluation) is one of the key concepts in Haskell. If you don't agree with the advantages of lazy over eager.... I can say from experience I love it and use it all the time. What do you think didn't work about it?
You are thinking in terms of eager evaluation. You don't have to do that in a lazy language since it uses things as needed. You manipulate infinite lists containing large but finite data sets safely because everything ends up being buffered but without any code or effort on your part.
I see below people missed the point you are making. You are correct but because mathematical concepts work so broadly and Haskell allows you to work so abstractly a very small collection of optimizations need to be done to get the compiler to work well. In terms of the code itself you just need to avoid certain well known pitfalls to get good performance.
You don't need to understand Monads to use monadic routines, the same way that in mainstream languages you don't need to understands stacks to use subroutines.
Video games is a good example of where Haskell would be excellent. The AI for most of these games is terrible. And it is terrible because making reasonable choices in a game is a very complex analysis. So complex that most programmers can't handle it.
Another example is taking advantage of the hardware. Right now because of eager evaluation it is very difficult to take full advantage of hardware. Use lazy evaluation and the system can allocate tasks based on hardware availability (like a mainframe does).
Sure they do. How many lines in the next web page? How many variables? How many on the whole site? How many simultaneous users? How many files do they need access to?
Not having to worry about these constraints saves tons of time.
That is true of almost any language. The point is that there's nothing those languages can do that can't be done, often more easily, with the current crop of popular languages. Elegance cannot beat convenience in the workplace, or in most at any rate.
That was the point of the examples he gave there are lots and lots of things that are easier to do in lazy languages than in mainstream languages. Huge blocks of code simply aren't written because they aren't needed.
I agree for topics you are interested in read the original. What I'd be talking about is say annual or quarterly article summarizing the major Walmart news and linking to a few main threads on Wake Up Walmart. So a person who is willing to spend say 5-10 min / year on the Walmart issue can be informed to some extent and also find more if they are interested.
Things like local arts could be much be much handled without a paper distribution system. For example the information could be organized by: date, type of art, intended audience, cost and sortable. Now start linking reviews and discussion in with each event.
That way I can look for a cultural enriching event for the family on weekend ABC or a romantic art event with dinner on Saturday the DEF. I can see what other people thought of the event (or similar events) and read the reviews.
What I shouldn't have to do is the read the paper every day, make clippings and try and remember. So no I don't see even on local news the newspapers doing a very good job. I wish they did, since this is an area they right now have a real advantage. And frankly things like placement on that sort of information site can be very profitable from advertising perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the article Ian is specifically saying he can't provide that level of integration. He gives examples like automated uninstall and upgrade as well as management system ( Red Hat Network and Novell ZENworks) as things that still wouldn't work under his scheme.
In other words I'm agreeing with Ian Murdock, what I was arguing LSB would not accomplish he is saying it wouldn't accomplish either even under his scheme.
In other words he agrees with you (as do I) that ISV want to treat Linux and not Debian, RedHat, Suse... as the platform and his feeling is that is possible provided you aim only for self contained apps that don't use the management systems. I agree that is possible.
I read the articles, Ian Murdock is obviously reputable. But the key thing here is he is talking about binary compatibility without integration. In particular not handling things like dependency resolution, not supporting uninstall/upgrade in any clean way, not integrating into Linux configuration tools.....
Yes this is possible. And that is what I've been saying you can have binary compatibility that sorta works and integrate poorly. So I agree with the articles and I agree with everything Murdock said. It may be that you and I are simply defining compatibility differently. IMHO not integrating with all the tools is very similar to when I run a Windows app on a Mac or a Unix app via. cygwin on Windows.
But anyway if that is what you are aiming that I think is possible. Ian is a terrific community leader for almost 15 years.
What would happen is that LabView would contact the distribution and the distribution would create a distribution specific version of LabView for them (possibly at some marginal charge like $500-1000). So you wouldn't use LabView .rpms but rather LabView RH Enterprise, or Enterprise Suse .rpms. This is how for example db2 used to be distributed when IBM was pushing it (before Oracle switched over from Sun).
Most likely some sort of license manager would be needed to use the .rpm or whatever license scheme LabView prefers.
I don't know anything about a2d but integration is easily handled at the distribution level.
The issue is simple. Unix and Linux software are not self contained bundles designed to run in isolation. They assume chains of other related components. However they are flexible in a way that commercial software is not. To for example EndNote which is being discussed has a plug in for Word but not for OpenOffice, Pages, Lotus Word Pro.... Linux users want flexibility. So Linux software allows for flexibility in issues like dynamic linking of libraries to server dependencies to dozens of configurations. But, the distributions differ from one another in how they handle things. As a result configuration files need to be changed in complex ways between distributions.
The alternative would be some sort of unified handling which prevents distributions from being radically different than one another with respect to their core offerings: for example unified configuration managers.
Windows and Mac don't offer this sort of flexibility so they don't experience this type of complexity. They do have a base of standard components and don't offer complex towers of applications supported from different vendors. A good example is looking at Oracle which installs its own webservers and perl under Windows and Mac because it can't be sure of what is there.
While it is certainly possible that binary software directly to the end user might sort of kinda work in the end a system designed for flexibility will never be as uncomplicated as one that is not. For the same reason that Windows gaming is so much more complex than console gaming.
What you want is that something that by and large the Linux rejected early in the 1990s and has never been willing to make the trades for. You have freedom under Linux to get software from outside your distribution you just are expected to be skilled when you do it. The Unix platform that supports good binary compatibility is Solaris and OSX.
Creating large CRM systems is not free. Very little can be done other than "dump it online" if the cost has to be kept very low.
No it isn't a miss you are just failing to see why things are the way they are and what would be the consequences of changing them. You want users to have access to software from developers the linux model is distributions take software from developers. There is supposed to be a middle man there.
What is the problem with Cent/RedHat Enterprise?
Under the Linux model end users aren't supposed to be doing this. Labview should be distributed from the distribution not directly to the customer. The problem is Labview doesn't want to offer their software the Linux way, they want to do it the Windows way and that doesn't work so well.
Flash isn't Linux software. It doesn't follow Linux standards. Linux has always had problems with closed source software and probably always will. The model for Linux is open source, binary compatibility is a low priority even if you follow things like LSB.
Where Linux systems kicks but is integration of open source packages. What open packages do you use that you had trouble using under windows?
This argument has been on /. for the last dozen years. The Microsoft / Sun model of software distribution is:
software creater -> reseller / OEM -> customer which allows for commerce.
The Linux model is:
creator -> distribution -> customer which allows for an integrated and functional system.
There is no reason to bring to free software a distribution model intended for software sales.
The government could hire librarians to organize the data. This is are a group of people highly trained in how to take large quantities of non standard data and organize it in a way that people can find what they want.
Right, so that fits with my understanding. Given an operation F, you pass in some state, the operation is performed, and the output is a modified state (eg, the cursor is moved to the next line, etc). So the state is the monad?
No. Remember you asked me how to use monads. Trying to understand them is what makes them hard. Now image the language would take any block of code and automatically append the extra float to all the data structures. That's the state monad. That is the State monad / Random number monad is the monad that appends that extra float to all your data structures and makes sure all your functions pass them back properly so you don't have to write any code to allow for random numbers. That is you write your code as if you didn't need random numbers and just "lift it" via. the monad.
Remember in Haskell there is no "then". You are not assured when things happen (except for ordering monads like I/O). You simply tell it function f needs values a,b, and c computed and it is none of your business what gets computed when. The state monad / random number monad will take care of making sure that each generated random number gets used only once behind the scenes. The same way the random function does in your current language.
And in the case of Haskell, where is the state? Is it implicit? Explicit, and I just didn't notice it?
Explicit in the monad but not present in the rest of the code at all.
Incidentally, I still don't think this is terribly intuitive... I've just spent a lot of time trying to "get" it. :)
I think you get it. You just don't believe me yet that it can be this easy.
QNX can be boot in about a second and has both VI and Emacs. You can have EMACS preloaded as part of the boot and it won't add much time.
grumbel already gave an example of stacks. As for the State Monad. Consider the random function. In an imperative language
random has a "global variable" which is the last random number and really looks like:
random()
new_number = function (last_number)
last_number = new_number
return new_number
Now it is pretty you could also do if you wanted by making random a function of one variable
random2(float last_number)
new_number = function (last_number)
return new_number
And then make the calling functions responsible i.e.
a = random2(global_last_number)
global_last_number = a
Now if you didn't have globals you just append a float "global_last_number" to all your data structures
and then the calls would look like:
x.global_last_number = random2(x.global_last_number)
Now image the language would take any block of code and automatically append the extra float to all the data structures. That's the state monad.
The way this would work is that there is a that there would be an array of input. Once a function needed more input then was available the input would "compute" additional information which would be reading a buffer and/or waiting for input. The same way you would in an imperative language. The difference is that all the messy loops happen automagically since in terms of every other function the input has already happened. There is no waiting except in the one I/O routine.
Haskell is a programming language. It makes it easy to work through algorithms that are complicated by giving you tools that are very powerful. So I think it does make it easier to think of algorithms because in practice you put them together piece meal.
Take an example of 8 queens problem. You say well I want solve the n-1 queens problem and then add queens:
queens number_of_queens = qu number_of_queens where
qu 0 = [[]]
qu (m+1) = [ p++[n] | p
Simple. I don't have to work through how to detect conflicts yet.
Then I work out the conflicts code:
safe p n = all not [ check (i,j) (m,n) | (i,j) - zip [1..] p ]
where m = 1 + length p
check (i,j) (m,n) = j==n || (i+j==m+n) || (i-j==m-n)
and that's it. Much easier than in an imperative language.
safe p n = all not [ check (i,j) (m,n) | (i,j) - zip [1..] p ]
where m = 1 + length p
check (i,j) (m,n) = j==n || (i+j==m+n) || (i-j==m-n)
As for your point about demand evaluation (lazy evaluation) is one of the key concepts in Haskell. If you don't agree with the advantages of lazy over eager .... I can say from experience I love it and use it all the time. What do you think didn't work about it?
You are thinking in terms of eager evaluation. You don't have to do that in a lazy language since it uses things as needed. You manipulate infinite lists containing large but finite data sets safely because everything ends up being buffered but without any code or effort on your part.
I see below people missed the point you are making. You are correct but because mathematical concepts work so broadly and Haskell allows you to work so abstractly a very small collection of optimizations need to be done to get the compiler to work well. In terms of the code itself you just need to avoid certain well known pitfalls to get good performance.
Nothing beats C.
You don't need to understand Monads to use monadic routines, the same way that in mainstream languages you don't need to understands stacks to use subroutines.
And monads are no more complicated than pointers.
Video games is a good example of where Haskell would be excellent. The AI for most of these games is terrible. And it is terrible because making reasonable choices in a game is a very complex analysis. So complex that most programmers can't handle it.
Another example is taking advantage of the hardware. Right now because of eager evaluation it is very difficult to take full advantage of hardware. Use lazy evaluation and the system can allocate tasks based on hardware availability (like a mainframe does).
Sure they do. How many lines in the next web page? How many variables? How many on the whole site? How many simultaneous users? How many files do they need access to?
Not having to worry about these constraints saves tons of time.
That is true of almost any language. The point is that there's nothing those languages can do that can't be done, often more easily, with the current crop of popular languages. Elegance cannot beat convenience in the workplace, or in most at any rate.
That was the point of the examples he gave there are lots and lots of things that are easier to do in lazy languages than in mainstream languages. Huge blocks of code simply aren't written because they aren't needed.
Here is the connection between map and reduce.
In programming
map takes a function from A to B, a list of A's and produces a list of B's
reduce are associative fold functions. They take a list of B's and an initial value and produce a single C.
Like say for example MAP a collection of social security numbers to ages and then select (REDUCE TO) the maximum age from the collection.
Now there are results called "fusions" which allow you make computational reductions for example:
foldr f a . map g = foldr (f.g) a
So in other words the data set is being treated like a large array using array manipulation commands.
I agree for topics you are interested in read the original. What I'd be talking about is say annual or quarterly article summarizing the major Walmart news and linking to a few main threads on Wake Up Walmart. So a person who is willing to spend say 5-10 min / year on the Walmart issue can be informed to some extent and also find more if they are interested.
Things like local arts could be much be much handled without a paper distribution system. For example the information could be organized by: date, type of art, intended audience, cost and sortable. Now start linking reviews and discussion in with each event.
That way I can look for a cultural enriching event for the family on weekend ABC or a romantic art event with dinner on Saturday the DEF. I can see what other people thought of the event (or similar events) and read the reviews.
What I shouldn't have to do is the read the paper every day, make clippings and try and remember. So no I don't see even on local news the newspapers doing a very good job. I wish they did, since this is an area they right now have a real advantage. And frankly things like placement on that sort of information site can be very profitable from advertising perspective.