Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I don't think his presentation is great, but I recognized something I thought of myself, which is why I posted this. I would also like to offer my thought, which is:

Most of the difficulty in programming comes from defining data in relationship to other data, rather than to abstract value systems(which are what types and classes are).

If this is the case, then we should formulate the vocabulary and definitions we use for our data structures in a way that makes it as easy as possible to define and maintain data relationships, and correspondingly, easy to generate any kind of index or result set. If you do this, the nitty gritty of "which data am I working with" is gone. SQL is the obvious example of how this works, but it's tied into database systems, which are not the only use case.

The system proposed is table-centric. I don't think tables are special, myself. I think all collection types are worth considering based on their properties to define relationships. The model I'm currently testing out myself relates a single value to any number of property lists and collections and autoupdates all of them.

Functional programming is a strongly related concept to my eyes, since in that paradigm, processing on list structures is used and reused to define many sorts of relationships.




The reason his system is table-centric is because he feels the relational model is a good foundation.




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

Search: