Re: Ada-Oriented GUI

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2018-03-23 17:16, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On 23/03/2018 13:31, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
>>
>>> I (humbly) think that people not knowing Rx but arguing against it are
>>> barking at the wrong tree.
>>
>> Yes, but this is a natural defense reflex against snake oil sellers.
> 
> But, Dmitry, you cocoon yourself in a layer of ignorance-is-BLISS (substituting several topics for that old DEC language) or perhaps even more than one layer.

Sure.

> To actually know that Rx and Ix are snake oil, you must first directly examine the actual product for sale,

Impossible, there are too many sellers of that oil. Therefore the 
reaction goes towards the art of the presentation. When something is 
advertised as a new paradigm, groundbreaking, "how I lose my weight in 
just 1 week" etc, alarm bells start to ring.

> perhaps scientifically by deep empirical examination fitting of a biological dissection or plotting of Copernican planetary motion during The Enlightenment.  You've done nothing of the sort.

Yes, see above. Skepticism is a pillar of scientific method. BTW, 
Copernicus was wrong and that was an empiric fact already in his time.

I merely expected a rational explanation how Rx or whatever would solve 
real problems of GUI design.

Continuing your example, Copernican model did not solve anything. It 
took Kepler and Newton who actually did.

> Your condemnations would be much more meaningful if you came back after 30 or 365 days to report that based on your in-depth analysis of actually extant source code and empirical executions thereof, the entire reactive-systems ideology is flawed at this & that points of departure at the git-go on which an entire house of cards is built.  But you've done nothing of the sort.

In some peer-reviewed journal maybe, but in a news conference?

> Just as in so many pseudo-science topics in the media today, science isn't some expert opining vociferously about topics based on hearsay or propaganda.  Science is not about pontificating a clung-to belief system; there exists a pontiff already for that.  Science is not about 97% of the mob-justice saying such-&-such.  Science is deliberate reproducible empirical examination (preferably via the Scientific Method with a control group and varying only a single variable) of extant reality.

True, but S/W is not science, not even engineering. It is a craft.

> Multiple people over a span of a decade are showing that by comparing the same app design before and after introduction of Rx in Swift and in Java and in C# eliminates defects by Rx's easing the visualization of how to properly handle multiple disparate eventflow arrival orderings in a very structured and disciplined way of focusing on river(s) of nouns rather than structured-programming-esque imperative verb-first mentality.

Sorry, but that reads like an advertising prospect again.

> And that is today's bleeding-edge prototypical kludgy Rx at run-time, just to help out the human designer's mental clarity.  Imagine what Rx at compile-time with did-you-cover-all-the-cases checks could do.  Imagine compile-time checks on over or under conflation/folding/mapping of categories of event arrivals.  That doesn't sound like snake oil at all.  That sounds precisely like something an Ada-esque language would meticulously verify at compile-time.

No, that sounds like a NP problem, if decidable, of the later I am not 
sure too. But a demonstration or explanation using a typical GUI beyond 
buttons, e.g. a tree view, could help.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de