| ▲ | losvedir 2 hours ago | |
Congrats on 1.0! I've been interested in Unison for a while now, since I saw it pop up years ago. As an Elixir/Erlang programmer, the thing that caught my eye about it was how it seemed to really actually be exploring some high level ideas Joe Armstrong had talked about. I'm thinking of, I think, [0] and [1], around essentially a content-addressable functions. Was he at all an influence on the language, or was it kind of an independent discovery of the same ideas? [0] https://groups.google.com/g/erlang-programming/c/LKLesmrss2k... [1] https://joearms.github.io/published/2015-03-12-The_web_of_na... | ||
| ▲ | pchiusano an hour ago | parent [-] | |
Thanks! I am not 100% sure the origin of the idea but I do remember being influenced by git and Nix. Basically "what if we took git but gave individual definitions a hash, rather than whole working trees?" Then later I learned that Joe Armstrong had thought about the same thing - I met Joe and talked with him about Unison a while back - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46050943 Independent of the distributed systems stuff, I think it's a good idea. For instance, one can imagine build tools and a language-agnostic version of Unison Share that use this per-definition hashing idea to achieve perfect incremental compilation and hyperlinked code, instant find usages, search by type, etc. It feels like every language could benefit from this. | ||