RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘TWiT’

What Twitter, Pownce, Jaiku, et. al. are missing

24 Aug

Leo Laporte hosted a very interesting round table on TWiTLive after taping this week’s TWiT about the current state of microblogging and the direction it should take in the future.  Leo taped it, and I believe he plans to post it as a podcast.

It was an interesting conversation and one of the things that became evident quickly is that microblogs are different things to different people and that people’s views on what they are evolve overtime.  For many people, they are simply a sindication service of their friends posts.  For others, it’s really an IM system with a public datastream that can be mined in interesting ways.  The former crowd are happy with the current state of things; the latter found that Twitter lost all of its usefulness when the XMPP interface and its track command went away.  I fall in this latter camp, and I think that the current set of closed ecosystems will never be able to scale to google or yahoo size bacause they are designed as database driven websites first, possibly with a messaging system tacked on.

The other thing I found interesting was how much time they spent talking about federation between services.  This is part of the XMPP specification.  It is a problem that has already been solved if everyone will just talk XMPP.  In fact, because any XMPP server is essentially an XML router, it has the capability to support multiple message schemas simulaneously.  This would allow you to, say, route the text message from your Pownce feed to Twitter, as they are compatible, but not pictures, videos, or longer message that are not.

I’m encourage by the direction projects like Laconica are taking.  This are designed as messaging systems first.  Thus, providing that datastreams the can drive the websites, search engines, and special purpose clients that will eventually meet the needs of both camps.  In the end, I hope that somehow an open pipe can be created between these closed systems.  It will result in richer conversations and more complete data mining.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Technology

 

In Defense of Ada (No Really!)

30 Jun

On this week’s TWiT, episode 149, the cast had some fun at the expense of Ada.  Now having worked with Ada a good deal over the years, I’ve done my fair share of this.  In fact, I’ve worked with several people which I would describe as Ada zelots, and I certainly enjoy getting a rise out of them by playing devil’s advocate when they go on an anti-C rant.  However, some of what they said was just factually wrong, so I guess I’ll have to se the record straight.

First, they said no one is using Ada, not even the DoD anymore.  Well, this just shows that none of them have ever worked in aerospace.  Most current commercial aircraft, from including Boeing 777 and Airbus 380, have Ada code running in them somewhere.  Also, the air traffic control system that keeps those planes from crashing into each other in a great many countries is written in Ada.  Satellites, the majority of the things NASA and the ESA fly and put into space, nuclear planst, rail and subway control systems, some European financial systems, and the who’s who of NATO weapon systems.  This page sums it up well.  Pretty much, if it would really suck if it screwed up, there’s a chance Ada is at least a small player in the industry.  It’s true that Ada went no where in the commercial applications business.  Then again, this is the crowd that is still constantly issuing security fixes for buffer overrun exploits.  Commercial application developers were late to see the utility of safety over a slight loss of speed.  They are now heading in the direction of managed code under VMs like Java and Microsoft CIL.

Next, they said it failed because it was slow and too complex for anyone to implement.  It amused me because this exchange came right after Jerry Pournelle got done praising Bill Gates for being smart enough to know that Moore’s Law would bail Microsoft out no matter how bloated they allowed Windows to become.  Anyway, during the Reagan defense boom, there were any number of Ada vendors who had no problem creating a validated compiler.  As this is a niche market, consolidation has occurred since, but there are still 5 or 6 major players in the field.  To the question of speed, you take a surprisingly small hit for the run-time checking you get in return.  Certainly, it is less than the hit you take moving to managed code.

Okay, now that I’ve managed to sound like one of those Ada zelots, let me say that I’m generally language agnostic.  Good programmers can write good code in any language, and bad programmers will manage to screw up the works despite attempts by the languages and development processes to stop them.  However, as someone who has the unique prespective of having implmented mission critical, real-time embedded systems in both Ada and C++, I would certainly recommend the former over the latter for that particular application.