concise-encoding VS todomvc

"Local time" is time zone metadata. I've written a fair bit about timekeeping, because the context of what you're capturing becomes very important: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

This is basically why I ended up rolling my own text date format for Concise Encoding: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ct...

ISO 8601 and RFC 3339 are fine for dates in the past, but they're not great as a general time format.

This looks similar to https://concise-encoding.org/

Dogma was developed as a consequence of trying to describe Concise Binary Encoding. The CBE spec used to look like the preserves binary spec, full of hex values, tables and various ad-hoc illustrations: https://preserves.dev/preserves-binary.html

Now the CBE formal description looks like this: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/cb...

And the regular documentation looks like this: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/cb...

Dogma also does text formats (Concise Encoding has a text and binary format, so I needed a metalanguage that could do both in order to make it less jarring for a reader):

https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ct...

https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ct...

Hey thanks for taking the time to critique!

I actually do have an ANTLR file that is about 90% of the way there ( https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/tree/master/an... ), so I could use those as a basis...

One thing I'm not sure about is how to define a BNF rule that says for example: "An identifier is a series of characters from unicode categories Cf, L, M, N, and these specific symbol characters". BNF feels very ASCII-centric...

It's still in the prerelease stage, but v1 will be released later this year. I'm mostly getting hits from China since they tend to be a lot more worried about security. I expect the rest of the world to catch on to the gaping security holes of JSON and friends in the next few years as the more sophisticated actors start taking advantage of them. For example https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

There are still a few things to do:

- Update enctool (https://github.com/kstenerud/enctool) to integrate https://cuelang.org so that there's at least a command line schema validator for CE.

- Update the grammar file (https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/tree/master/an...) because it's a bit out of date.

- Revamp the compliance tests to be themselves written in Concise Encoding (for example https://github.com/kstenerud/go-concise-encoding/blob/master... but I'll be simplifying the format some more). That way, we can run the same tests on all CE implementations instead of everyone coming up with their own. I'll move the test definitions to their own repo when they're done and then you can just submodule it.

I'm thinking that they should look more like:

    c1

Ugh Unicode has been the bane of my existence trying to write a text format spec. I started by trying to forbid certain characters to keep files editable and avoid Unicode rendering exploits (like hiding text, or making structured text behave differently than it looks), but in the end it became so much like herding cats that I had to just settle on https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ct...

Basically allow everything except some separators, most control chars, and some lookalike characters (which have to be updated as more characters are added to Unicode). It's not as clean as I'd like, but it's at least manageable this way.

You might get a kick out of Concise Encoding then (shameless plug). It focuses on security and consistency of behavior.

https://concise-encoding.org/

In particular:

* How to deal with unrepresentable values: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

* Mandatory limits and security considerations: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

* Consistent error classification and processing: https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

In the above example, `&a:` means mark the next object and give it symbolic identifier "a". `$a` means look up the reference to symbolic identifier "a". So this is a map whose "recusive link" key is a pointer to the map itself. How this data is represented internally by the receiver of such a document (a table, a struct, etc) is up to the implementation.

> - Time zones: ASN.1 supports ISO 8601 time types, including specification of local or UTC time.

Yes, this is the major failing of ISO 8601: They don't have true time zones. It only uses UTC offsets, which are a bad idea for so many reasons. https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

> - Bin + txt: Again, I'm unclear on what you mean here, but ASN.1 has both binary and text-based encodings

Ah cool, didn't know about those.

> - Versioned: Also a little unclear to me

The intent is to specify the exact document formatting that the decoder can expect. For example we could in theory decide make CBE version 2 a bit-oriented format instead of byte-oriented in order to save space at the cost of processing time. It would be completely unreadable to a CBE 1 decoder, but since the document starts with 0x83 0x02 instead of 0x83 0x01, a CBE 1 decoder would say "I can't decode this" and a CBE 2 decoder would say "I can decode this".

With documents versioned to the spec, we can change even the fundamental structure of the format to deal with ANYTHING that might come up in future. Maybe a new security flaw in CBE 1 is discovered. Maybe a new data type becomes so popular that it would be crazy not to include it, etc. This avoids polluting the simpler encodings with deprecated types and bloating the format.

The odd thing is unison started purely as a language. Now there's a platform.

I often find the best way to understand complex things is to dig all the way back to when they were being thought up. In this case there's a blog post from 2017 that I still find useful when thinking about Unison:

https://pchiusano.github.io/2017-01-20/why-not-haskell.html

Key quote:

Composability is destroyed at program boundaries, therefore extend these boundaries outward, until all the computational resources of civilization are joined in a single planetary-scale computer

(With the open sourcing of the language I doubt it will be one computer anymore, but it's an interesting window into the original idea)

Personally I find there's a lot to this. It's interesting that we're really, really good at composing code within a program. I can map, filter, loop and do whatever I want to nested data structures with complete type safety to my heart's content. My editor's autocompleting, docs are showing up on hover, it's easy to test, all's well.

But as soon as I want cron involved, and maybe a little state-- this is all wrecked. Also deployment gets more annoying as they talk about a lot.

So I think Unison always had to have a platform to support bringing this stuff into the language, even though they built the language first.

I'd love to hear some opinions from outside Unison about how they like using this language, tooling and hosting.

I'd like to hear this too.

Also, it would be great if there was something like https://eugenkiss.github.io/7guis/ or https://todomvc.com/ for platforms that we could use to compare Unison, AWS, etc etc. Or is there already a 7GUIs for platforms that I don't know about?

git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc.git

The problem with this question is that, if it's not engineering, what is it? A better question is motivated by studying the history of chemistry and its progenitor, alchemy. That is: is software development alchemy or chemistry?

Software development alchemy. Just like alchemy, software dev is not standardized, everyone has their own idiosyncratic naming systems, classifications and rules-of-thumb. Like alchemists, software engineers are often jealous of their proprietary knowledge. Just like alchemists, they admired, feared and loathed for having secret knowledge. And just like alchemists, you have to be exceedingly brilliant to work in such a chaotic field and get anything done.

What changed alchemy into chemistry, and what is the analog to that in software? Arguably the change started with notion of conservation of mass and energy, and the development of the periodic table (thanks to Lavoisier and Mendeleev, respectively). As for what that analog is for software, first we need a characterization of the field. With alchemy and chemistry both, it's essentially mixing stuff together, heating and cooling it, and seeing what happens. But what is it for software?

Software engineering is often mistaken for computer science. Computer science is a tiny subset of software engineering. In practice, almost all of computer science is encapsulated in a few, tiny standard libraries - the places where bubble-sorts and hash maps live. (This mistake is consistent, and leads to "leet code" style interview questions which are irrelevant to actual work). I'd characterize software engineering as the set of solutions to a boundary value problem[0] described as "a set of interacting screens with behaviors pleasing to humans". The current solutions to this problem have been idiosyncratically shaped by resource constraints that rapidly relaxed over time[1], and characterized by elements discovered at random by necessity: e.g. kernels, processes, files, procedures, terminals, etc. In this analysis "language" functions as a kind of "coordinate system" as in physics[2][3], within which each of these elements are described, and within which elements are combined to make new elements, which eventually yield a solution to the boundary problem (which is termed "application").

I don't particularly know what the standardization of software engineering will look like, but I'm certain that this analysis, or something similar to it, is the first steps in the right direction. Personally, I look forward to the day we can shed the considerable weight of our alchemical origins.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_value_problem

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system

3 - https://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code - the same problem is solved in many languages. For applications: https://todomvc.com/

Compare the source code at https://todomvc.com/ to see what various frameworks bring to the table. VanillaJS is generally 2-3x as much code since you have to implement the MVC logic yourself.

There is an example (not mine) of AnjularJS controllers, how much JS I have to write:https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/tree/gh-pages/architecture-examples/angularjs/js

Learn by doing. You could recreate the TodoMVC app.

How easy or hard to build Shopify without zero coding experience? Shopify is a big thing =) So that would be hard to build with zero coding experience. Start with a todo list, micro blog, or something small in scope that interests you. https://todomvc.com/ is interesting since it is the identical app, written in many different ways, different languages and frameworks - and you can use them as reference to see how others have built something.