Jay Taylor's notes

back to listing index

Programming Models for Distributed Computation | Hacker News

[web search]
Original source (news.ycombinator.com)
Tags: programming distributed-systems computer-science distributed-computing ebooks
Clipped on: 2020-04-06

Image (Asset 1/2) alt=


Image (Asset 2/2) alt=
The menu of papers for the associated class, https://heather.miller.am/teaching/cs7680/, looks really rich. The class is from 2016. Looks like the book dates from 2016-2017. My first impression was that this was work in progress ...

I'd be curious to see what from this set Adrian Colyer https://blog.acolyer.org/ has already digested.

A perhaps interesting follow on would be to see which of these programming models are manifest today across the big cloud services .. or how they have advanced from this legacy work.


Linear Logic / Session Types seem interesting. I've poked around some of the papers, but I'm not sure how to approach the subject yet.

https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/topics/linear-logic.ht...


Session Types, AFAIU are a specific implementation of a linear logic in some type system and I am not all too familiar with them in practice. However, I would like to think I am well versed in Linear Logic and Substructural Type Theory. I think the works by Wadler are a good place to start, in particular is a sort of review paper, based in intuitionistic logic (which he also covers in said paper), on linear logic. It’s called ‘A Taste of Linear Logic’ (I actually have the paper open in Safari on my iPhone as I type this) and it is written as a sort of primer on the area. Wadler’s bibliographies on the works contained in the pages you linked are a good source as well. If you are at all coming from a place of familiarity with Haskell, a decent overview of the current discussions on Linear Types in functional languages is at [2]. And lastly, if you like videos, Simon Peyton Jones has a great talk on YouTube [3] where he discusses practical linear types for Haskell, but the theory is not Haskell specific.

I will warn you that the latter two references make several arguments and then discuss uniqueness typing (which is related but very different) and that is a whole other rabbit hole of sources, but generally a good topic to dig into as well.

[1] https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/lineartaste/lin...

[2] http://edsko.net/2017/01/08/linearity-in-haskell/

[3] https://youtu.be/t0mhvd3-60Y


For those who didn't figure it out - instead of raw markdown you can read the book already in html format that browsers can render: http://dist-prog-book.com/chapter/

I haven’t checked these links for a couple of years, but here’s a collection of distributed systems reading lists I compiled.

https://gist.github.com/macintux/6227368



lol hn never fails in it's shallow dismissal of an enormous amount of work: as of right now there's a comment on how this textbook is too shallow (I guess if it were a content marketing medium post it would be much better) and how it can't possibly be substantive because it's written in markdown.

man what a bastion of intelligent discussion this place is.


It is fair to point out this is a product of a highly regarded computer science school.

So the honest question is: should we subject industry e.g. blogs to the same standard as the academy. I would think we should hold academic products to a much higher standard. I do agree criticism should be constructive. (One of PRs for example noted lack of mention of CSP.)


Hum... It does really depend.

Honestly, for me right now, coming from HN into random places, no I don't have different standards. But in a course having a textbook recommendation, yes, the standards are very different.

Anyway, you are out on a tangent. The work should be judged based on its quality, and for all the dimensions quality has, the presentation format is not one that matters.


Maybe when you're assessing the relative quality we should consider this context with more weight, but should that excuse industry for presenting expertise via a light-weight puff piece PR posting?

>I would think we should hold academic products to a much higher standard

who is we? are you a tt prof at literally the number 1 cs school in the US? are you a reviewer for any distributed journals? the author of this book is a wildly successful researcher. why should i trust literally almost anyone's here opinion over their opinion?


Please don't make this place even worse by adding a supercilious dismissal to a shallow one.

If you think it's possible for a large, public internet forum not to get a lot of ignorant or shitty comments, that's extremely mistaken. What's necessary is for people who know more to post better ones. Since you seem to know more, you should be helping with that, not adding to the bottom of the barrel by dumping on it.

There are excellent comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22710928 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22709644. I'm sure you could write something better if you tried. Indeed, you occasionally have done so.


>If you think it's possible for a large, public internet forum not to get a lot of ignorant or shitty comments

why is it that the tech subs at reddit don't have the same kind of policing you practice here and are just as productive? i wonder if it's because community policing is more effective than whatever brand of dictatorial policing you practice here hmmmmmm. the only difference between the moderation here and at reddit that i see is your self-importance and the effect it has on anyone who feels they're part of the same self-important rarefied club.


Which subreddits are you referring to?

r/programming, r/math, r/physics, r/compsci. All of them don't have nearly the strict moderation you practice here and all of them are great places to have substantive discussion.

I'm gonna repeat what I've said many times: by enforcing a strict decorum what you actually accomplish, and I mean exactly you dang, is give the air/pretense of intellectualism without any of the substance. Hence the constant barrage of hypercritical (but superficial) disparaging comments. It's like any other system that privileges one type of language - those that can deploy it effectivity feel empowered and emboldened because they feel they are the defacto ethical/just/concordant.

If you wanted proscribe things for the betterment of the community you should proscribe content (e.g. hate speech) rather than language.

edit:

this comment is the exemplar par excellence of what your rules produce:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17034295

for many hours it was the highest ranking comment on that post. it is pure invective cloaked in "constructive criticism". it took me pointing outing how absolutely rude it was for it to start bubbling down. i'm not a hero. i'm simply pointing out that it is absolutely necessary to point out when someone is being rude.

peatfreak 9 days ago [flagged] [dead] [-]

This is going to sound snobby to some people but I don't care. I really believe this.

The whole book is written in Markdown. This is a huge red flag for me and the book goes in to the "no" pile pretty much immediately.

Distributed computation is a complex and complicated discipline. Moreover if you're going to write a book and you don't even realize that Markdown is completely inappropriate it calls in to question your authoring skills.

At best the use of Markdown is lazy.

If you are an expert in distributed computation I assume that you're probably capable of using LaTeX, DocBook, *roff, or some other appropriate technical authoring system.


"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


It doesn't come off as snobby or even pretentious, merely facile. The author has publications in distributed systems in reputed journals, is currently researching and teaching on distributed systems, and has worked with the Scala community for quite some time so at the very least she is competent and knows the subject.

Dismissing content because it's written in markdown without providing good reasons, such as quality of content or specifically how the presentation hinders proper communication is indeed quite lazy. If you want people to take you seriously, please try to be more precise in your criticism.


What does writing in Markdown have to do with the complexity of the topic? Heather Miller is an assistant professor at CMU and well respected and certainly an expert in this context. Clearly she believed Markdown was sufficient for her purpose and/or wanted to leverage the other benefits beyond just its simplicity. Did you see that book is being rendered on a site? http://dist-prog-book.com/chapter/2/futures.html
throwqwerty 9 days ago [flagged] [dead] [-]

>What does writing in Markdown have to do with the complexity of the topic?

nothing. the person you're responding to just wants to feel very good about themselves without actually engaging with the material.


Reacting to a bad comment with an even worse comment is not ok here. It's against the site guidelines, and you've been doing it a lot. We've had to ban you before for that, so would you please stop?

If you're posting to HN, you're responsible for helping to take care of this place, to the best of your ability and awareness. If others are wrong, correct them respectfully. If they are ignorant, teach them. If you know more, share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. Being an asshole and tearing others down helps no one, and worsens the very things you're complaining about.

I'm sure you wouldn't litter in a city park just because others do, nor would you fail to put out a campfire just because you were mad at other campers. Please bring those values here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


>We've had to ban you before for that, so would you please stop?

you seem to be oblivious to the fact that i don't care (hence the throwaway).


I'm hoping to persuade you!

>I'm hoping to persuade you!

you can't because i fundamentally disagree with you and i have zero incentive to abide


In that case I'll settle for persuading others.

The content seems shallow, the topic is extremely broad. Overall I do not feel this topic can be described really well.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


I think "shallow" is being a bit uncharitable. The book here doesn't dive into ditributed systems theory very deeply but it gives a very rich overview of real industry tools used over the past few decades with plenty of context around why technologies are being used or discarded. They go into code examples of things like CRDTs so its not like its just prose.

One thing that feels off to me as a backend engineer that deals with distributed systems in practice is no treatment (AFAICT) of containers/virtual machines and how tools like kubernetes are providing the primitives that the distributed languages of the past provided. In general I think chapter 4 doesn't have a cohesive narrative on its treatment of languages for distributed computation. I know this is messy topic but I think more could be done to tie things to current art.

If I were to make a prediction, there's general trend towards protocols (mostly network level above layer 4) being the actual thing of interest for distributed computation, not single language runtimes. Wire-compatible DBs like AWS aurora and MySQL are an example, but also I think things like container orchestator's liveness and readiness checks over HTTP. As more primitives rally around the same core concepts, I think the general trend will be to go from conceptual similarity, to client library compatability (e.g. identical interfaces a la OpenTracing <> Lightstep, Jaeger) and eventually wire/protocol compatibility. Language runtimes are too much of a moving target as there are other pressures at play (community, tooling, typing, yes even syntax) that go into language choices over a decade.


Yes, i was also a bit disappointed reading e.g. the reference e.g. about CSPs, it should at least link some other textbooks here. However, I admire the work being put into this. It would be great if all university teachers would make the effort to publish open access. A dream would be collaboratively maintained textbooks with strong single editors for readability and consistent style. Also there should be foundations like apache, etc that market such material and put up quality control, pay lectors where the publishers are largely failing atm.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: