dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language
From newsforge: nile writes, Today, dLoo released the complete architecture of an extensible peer-to-peer programming language. Unlike traditional languages, this language is defined on the Internet. Its syntax and semantics can be extended by posting additional pieces of the language. As developers add to the language it scales in richness and functionality. Programs run in a software browser called BlueBox which dynamically downloads and assembles the parts of the language as needed. For more information and access to the source visit http://www.dloo.org. BlueBox is a community driven project released under the GPL. http://www.dloo.org/
Re: Per-object inheritance in core a red herring?
Dan Sugalski wrote: At 11:01 AM 7/10/2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote: And where's the guarantee that vtbls are per-object and not per-class? VTABLES ARE PER OBJECT. So mote it be. :) Dan What? Up until now it's been vtable-pointers are per-object.
Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language
At 10:16 AM 7/11/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: nile writes, Today, dLoo released the complete architecture of an extensible peer-to-peer programming language. And I thought NFS was the security hole from hell... Unless there's a lot of very clever (research-level, Hi we're from IBM's Watson Labs, would you like a very highly-paid job level) stuff going on under the hood that is completely and totally glossed over in all the PR gook, this system is slightly less secure than putting your IP address and root password in big letters in a 30-second Superbowl commercial. (Though I may be wrong--it's possible I'm underestimating the danger) Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Per-object inheritance in core a red herring?
At 11:24 AM 7/11/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: At 11:01 AM 7/10/2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote: And where's the guarantee that vtbls are per-object and not per-class? VTABLES ARE PER OBJECT. So mote it be. :) Dan What? Up until now it's been vtable-pointers are per-object. They are. Who says they need to share what's pointed to? That's a space and creation time optimization. :) Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language
- Original Message - From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nathan Torkington [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 6:59 PM Subject: Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language At 10:16 AM 7/11/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: nile writes, Today, dLoo released the complete architecture of an extensible peer-to-peer programming language. And I thought NFS was the security hole from hell... Unless there's a lot of very clever (research-level, Hi we're from IBM's Watson Labs, would you like a very highly-paid job level) stuff going on under the hood that is completely and totally glossed over in all the PR gook, this system is slightly less secure than putting your IP address and root password in big letters in a 30-second Superbowl commercial. (Though I may be wrong--it's possible I'm underestimating the danger) We must learn from java that initially failed to be sold as the language for embedded devices and was integrated as a browser (and in a browser) as an afterthought with an incredible success. But security was built-in from the start because these embedded devices were intended to be connected possibly on an insecure network: Internet. The lesson to be drawn is consistent with Dan sayings: it is an excellent way to spread a product as a browser or better as a plug-in but the security model must be thought ab initio. Sun and Gosling have learnt that, among many other things, with their unsuccessful and long-defunct Network extensible Windows system: NeWS. Absence of security model is alsso probably the reason why perl did not trhive in this biotop (the browsers themselves , not the servers who feeded the browsers). The module Safe is nice though but that is an afterthought . As a result it could not be made totally secure. -- stef Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 11 13:35:23 2001 . . . The lesson to be drawn is consistent with Dan sayings: it is an excellent way to spread a product as a browser or better as a plug-in but the security model must be thought ab initio. Sun and Gosling have learnt that, among many other things, with their unsuccessful and long-defunct Network extensible Windows system: NeWS. Absence of security model is alsso probably the reason why perl did not trhive in this biotop (the browsers themselves , not the servers who feeded the browsers). The module Safe is nice though but that is an afterthought . As a result it could not be made totally secure. . . . Maybe. In '94-95, Perl was painful to embed; moreover, it lacked a popular way to construct dancing bears, which seemed to be at the heart of the first hundred thousand client- side Java demonstrations. At this point, I'm unconvinced that anything that happened during the Era of Browser Wars had to do with a sophisti- cated appreciation of security, by anyone, in any direction.
Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language
- Original Message - From: Cameron Laird [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:43 PM Subject: Re: dLoo releases peer-to-peer programming language From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 11 13:35:23 2001 . . . The lesson to be drawn is consistent with Dan sayings: it is an excellent way to spread a product as a browser or better as a plug-in but the security model must be thought ab initio. Sun and Gosling have learnt that, among many other things, with their unsuccessful and long-defunct Network extensible Windows system: NeWS. Absence of security model is alsso probably the reason why perl did not trhive in this biotop (the browsers themselves , not the servers who feeded the browsers). The module Safe is nice though but that is an afterthought . As a result it could not be made totally secure. . . . Maybe. In '94-95, Perl was painful to embed; moreover, it lacked a popular way to construct dancing bears, which seemed to be at the heart of the first hundred thousand client- side Java demonstrations. At this point, I'm unconvinced that anything that happened during the Era of Browser Wars had to do with a sophisti- cated appreciation of security, by anyone, in any direction. I agree that dancing bears was what made java a success in a then dull browser world but its long-lasting success well beyond the browser biotop is due in great part to its security model. Pursuing my biologic metaphor spreading is necessary, but it is not enough. A security model for a software entity in the promiscuous Internet world is akin to an healthy immune system for a biological organism. -- stef
Re: reparsing the ambiguous
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, David L. Nicol wrote:
Statistics break at the edges. I meant something that
will expand
$$$name[5]{cheese}
into
[snip]
my $RVAL;
eval {
$RVAL = ${${${name}[5]}{cheese}}
}; # normal parse: the sixth element
# in @name refers to a hash. Created like
#$H{cheese} = 'ducati'; $name[5] = \%H;
You do realize that the actual parsing of $$$name[5]{cheese} is
${${${name}}}[5]{cheese}
created like
$H{cheese} = 'ducati';
$A[5] = \%H;
$S = \@A;
$name = \$S;
right?
I'm not exactly sure what, if anything, this is an argument for.
--
Ilmari Karonen - http://www.sci.fi/~iltzu/
This must be a use of the word 'obvious' of which I was previously unaware.
-- Charles Martin in rec.arts.sf.science
