M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
znmeb at cesmail.net
Sun Mar 18 15:25:15 PDT 2007
Tom Novelli wrote:
> 3. Future Directions
> I'd like to start a discussion on the "ideal" framework for organizing
> information, with an eye toward future versions of the website CMS.
> Issues include metadata, versioning, multiple users, distributed
> storage and migration.
> planning stages, probably for the next 2-4 years. They're all talking
> about static typing, native compilation, real GC, and so on -- and
> borrowing heavily from one another. These languages won't give up
> their individuality yet, but a "common core" is entirely possible.
> This has the potential to make TUNES a reality, in large part. If we
> do our homework, this could be an opportune time to weigh in.
Well ... I just got back from the Mountain West Ruby Conference, which
featured an implementer's summit. The "Ruby Roadmap" looks a lot like a
three-horse race. Ruby on the Java Virtual Machine looks like the horse
to beat at this stage. At least Sun is backing it up with marketing
muscle and yet keeping it open source. Number 2 is a clever hack called
Rubinius that's inspired by Smalltalk/Squeak -- do everything you can in
Ruby and only have C where it's absolutely required. And number 3 (right
now) is the so-called "MRI" (Matz' Reference Implementation).
See my blog for (a little) more detail.
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-winner-is.html. In any
event, if you're looking for the "ideal framework for organizing
information", I don't think either conventional computer science or
today's or even next year's programming languages have much to offer
that we haven't already seen. I personally think Erlang is the future,
but then, I'm a queuing theory freak and anything named after one of the
pioneers is going to get my attention.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
More information about the TUNES