Stories with Tag proposal

• Frank Lloyd Wright's mile high skyscraper proposal (2021)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-06 22:39:22

  Verbose tl;dr

  Frank Lloyd Wright's "The Illinois," a mile-high skyscraper designed in 1956, was a utopian vision far ahead of its time. The 528-story structure, intended for Chicago, incorporated atomic-powered elevators, five-story "streets" within the building, and mooring masts for dirigibles. Though technologically infeasible at the time, the design showcased Wright's ambition to create a self-contained vertical city addressing population density and urban sprawl, emphasizing spaciousness and integration with nature despite its immense scale. The project highlighted Wright's distinctive organic architecture principles, showcasing a unique blend of engineering ambition and aesthetic vision that continues to fascinate today.

  In a fascinating exploration of architectural ambition and visionary design, the blog post "Frank Lloyd Wright's Mile-High Skyscraper Proposal (2021)" delves into the intricate details of a truly monumental, albeit unrealized, project conceived by the renowned architect Frank Lloyd Wright. This colossal structure, known as "The Illinois," a name evocative of the architect's deep connection to the Prairie State, was envisioned to reach a staggering height of one mile – a feat of engineering unparalleled in its time, and even today a concept that pushes the boundaries of structural possibility. Proposed in 1956, during a period of post-war optimism and technological advancement, The Illinois represented Wright's audacious attempt to redefine urban living and the very nature of the skyscraper.

  The post meticulously outlines the sheer scale of the proposed building, emphasizing its 528 stories, which would have dwarfed any existing structure. It explores the innovative structural system Wright envisioned, featuring a "taproot" foundation design intended to anchor the immense tower and ensure stability against wind forces at such extreme heights. This taproot, a concrete core extending deep into the earth, was a radical departure from conventional skyscraper construction and a testament to Wright's commitment to organic architecture, drawing inspiration from the natural world.

  Furthermore, the blog post details the proposed transportation system within the building, a critical aspect of its functionality. With the sheer number of occupants envisioned, Wright planned for atomic-powered elevators, a futuristic concept reflecting the technological zeitgeist of the era. These elevators would have whisked residents and visitors between floors with unprecedented speed, addressing the logistical challenges inherent in a building of such colossal proportions. The post highlights the sheer capacity of The Illinois, envisioned to accommodate an astounding 100,000 residents, effectively creating a vertical city within a single structure.

  Beyond the structural and logistical aspects, the post also touches upon the aesthetic vision driving Wright's design. It emphasizes the architect's desire to create a structure that was not merely functional but also aesthetically pleasing, incorporating elements of his signature Prairie School style into the design. The Illinois, despite its immense scale, was intended to embody a sense of grace and harmony, blending seamlessly with the surrounding environment, a hallmark of Wright's architectural philosophy. The blog post also acknowledges the utopian ideals embedded within the project, reflecting Wright's belief in the power of architecture to shape a better future and address the challenges of urban growth.

  Finally, the post concludes by acknowledging the ultimately unrealized nature of The Illinois, placing it within the context of other ambitious, yet unbuilt, architectural projects throughout history. It recognizes the project as a testament to Wright's boundless imagination and his unwavering commitment to pushing the boundaries of architectural possibility, leaving behind a legacy of visionary design that continues to inspire and intrigue architects and enthusiasts alike. While The Illinois never materialized beyond the conceptual stage, it serves as a powerful reminder of the transformative potential of architecture and the enduring power of human ingenuity.

  • Frank Lloyd Wright
  • Architecture
  • Skyscraper
  • Mile High Illinois
  • The Illinois
  • Urban Design
  • 20th Century Architecture
  • Unbuilt Architecture
  • proposal
  • design
  • History of Architecture
  • American Architecture
  • Verticality

  Summary of Comments ( 0 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42967226

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the practicality and aesthetics of Wright's "The Illinois," a mile-high skyscraper designed in 1956. Several commenters express skepticism about the feasibility of such a massive structure, particularly regarding elevator capacity and wind loads. Others question the atomic-powered elevators and the overall utility of a building that size. Some appreciate the ambitious vision and architectural boldness while acknowledging its likely impracticality. A few note the similarity to the tapering design of the Burj Khalifa, suggesting Wright's design may have been ahead of its time in some ways. The discussion also touches upon the societal implications of such a dense structure, with some arguing it epitomizes the flaws of top-down urban planning.

  The Hacker News post discussing Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high skyscraper proposal generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on the practicality and feasibility of such a structure.

  Several commenters pointed out the immense logistical challenges involved in constructing and maintaining a building of that scale. One user questioned the efficiency of elevators in such a tall building, suggesting they would become a major bottleneck. Another highlighted the sway and movement that a mile-high structure would experience due to wind and thermal expansion, raising concerns about the comfort and safety of occupants. The sheer amount of material required for the project and the logistics of transporting it were also discussed as significant obstacles.

  The conversation also touched upon the structural engineering marvels required to support such a colossal building. Commenters discussed the need for innovative materials and designs to withstand the immense stresses. The potential environmental impact of such a large structure was also raised.

  Some users expressed skepticism about the overall purpose and practicality of a mile-high building, questioning whether its benefits would outweigh the immense costs and challenges. Alternatives like building outwards instead of upwards were suggested.

  A few commenters drew parallels to other ambitious architectural projects and mega-structures, highlighting the tendency for such grand visions to often face significant delays, cost overruns, and sometimes even abandonment.

  Some more technically inclined commenters delved into the specifics of elevator design, material science, and structural engineering principles relevant to such a project, offering more detailed insights into the challenges and potential solutions. For instance, one comment mentioned the concept of sky lobbies and their role in optimizing elevator efficiency in supertall buildings.

  While a few commenters expressed fascination with the audacity of Wright's vision, the overall tone of the discussion leaned towards pragmatic skepticism about the feasibility and practicality of realizing such a monumental project with current technology and resources. The discussion did not offer a lot of support for the idea, instead focusing on the hurdles such a project would face.

• Context should go away for Go 2 (2017)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-21 08:08:24

  Verbose tl;dr

  The author argues that Go's context.Context is overused and often misused as a dumping ground for arbitrary values, leading to unclear dependencies and difficult-to-test code. Instead of propagating values through Context, they propose using explicit function parameters, promoting clearer code, better separation of concerns, and easier testability. They contend that using Context primarily for cancellation and timeouts, its intended purpose, would streamline code and improve its maintainability.

  This 2017 blog post by Andrey Tarantsov argues vehemently for the removal of the context package from Go in a hypothetical "Go 2." The author's primary contention is that context.Context solves a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place: cleanly canceling operations and passing request-scoped values. Tarantsov asserts that these issues are symptoms of a larger, underlying problem: Go's inadequate support for proper dependency injection.

  The author begins by acknowledging the widespread use and perceived necessity of context.Context, but quickly pivots to criticizing its pervasive nature. He argues that its ubiquity is not a sign of good design but rather a band-aid solution for a deeper flaw. The post likens context.Context to global variables, stating that while they might seem convenient initially, they ultimately lead to tightly coupled, difficult-to-test, and error-prone code.

  Tarantsov elaborates on the two main uses of context.Context: cancellation and passing request-scoped values. He criticizes cancellation for obscuring control flow, making it challenging to understand where and when an operation might be canceled. He provides examples of how error handling and explicit cancellation mechanisms within function calls would be cleaner and more transparent. Regarding request-scoped values, the author argues that passing these values as explicit function arguments is a superior approach, promoting clear dependencies and better testability.

  The core of the author's argument revolves around the concept of dependency injection. He posits that if Go had robust, built-in support for dependency injection, the need for context.Context would evaporate. He envisions a scenario where dependencies, including cancellation signals and request-scoped values, would be injected explicitly into functions and structs, eliminating the need for an omnipresent context object. This would, according to the author, lead to more modular, testable, and understandable code.

  Tarantsov concludes by acknowledging the difficulty of removing context.Context from the language, especially considering its widespread adoption. However, he maintains that for a hypothetical "Go 2," seriously considering its removal and focusing on proper dependency injection mechanisms would significantly benefit the language's long-term health and maintainability. He expresses hope that the Go community would prioritize more robust dependency injection features, ultimately rendering context.Context obsolete.

  • Go
  • Golang
  • Context
  • Go 2
  • concurrency
  • Error Handling
  • Programming Languages
  • Software Development
  • proposal
  • critique

  Summary of Comments ( 126 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42777625

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that context.Context in Go is overused and often misused for dependency injection or as a dumping ground for miscellaneous values. Several suggest that structured concurrency, improved error handling, and better language features for cancellation and deadlines could alleviate the need for context in many cases. Some argue that context is still useful for request-scoped values, especially in server contexts, and shouldn't be entirely removed. A few commenters express concern about the practicality of removing context given its widespread adoption and integration into the standard library. There is a strong desire for better alternatives, rather than simply discarding the existing mechanism without a replacement. Several commenters also mention the similarities between context overuse in Go and similar issues with dependency injection frameworks in other languages.

  The Hacker News post discussing the blog post "Context should go away for Go 2" contains a significant number of comments engaging with the author's proposition of removing the context package from Go. Several commenters offer compelling perspectives both for and against the idea.

  A recurring theme is the acknowledgement that context solves a real problem, particularly around cancellation and deadlines in long-running operations. Some comments express frustration with the pervasiveness of context and its impact on code readability and function signatures. They argue it has become an almost mandatory parameter, even in situations where it might not be strictly necessary.

  One commenter suggests that the verbosity and "boilerplate" introduced by context might be mitigated by language-level features, proposing syntax sugar or implicit passing of context. Another echoes this sentiment, wishing for a more elegant solution integrated into the language itself. This desire for a more streamlined approach to cancellation and deadlines without the explicit passing of context is a prominent thread in the discussion.

  Several comments delve into the specifics of how context is used and misused. One points out the common practice of passing context.Background() when no actual context is needed, highlighting this as a symptom of the package's overuse. Another discusses the difficulties in testing with context, suggesting that mocking and managing context values in tests adds complexity.

  Some commenters push back against the author's proposal, arguing that removing context entirely would be detrimental. They highlight its importance in managing resources and preventing leaks in long-running operations. They also point out that while it might be annoying at times, context provides a standardized and relatively efficient way to handle cancellation and deadlines, which would be difficult to replace.

  A few comments explore alternative approaches to context management, including proposals for libraries or language features that could achieve similar functionality with less verbosity. One commenter suggests a potential solution involving implicit context propagation based on function call chains.

  The overall sentiment seems to be a mixed bag. While many acknowledge the drawbacks of context and express a desire for a more elegant solution, there's also a recognition of its value and the challenges in replacing it entirely. The discussion highlights the tension between the practicality of context and the desire for cleaner, less verbose code in Go.

• An effect system proposal for C2y

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-18 19:00:26

  Verbose tl;dr

  This proposal introduces an effect system to C2x, aiming to enhance code modularity, optimization, and correctness by explicitly declaring and checking the side effects of functions. It defines a set of effect keywords, like reads and writes, to annotate function parameters and return values, indicating how they are accessed. These annotations are part of the function's type and are checked by the compiler, ensuring that declared effects match the function's actual behavior. The proposal also includes a mechanism for polymorphism over effects, enabling more flexible code reuse and separate compilation without sacrificing effect safety. This mechanism allows for abstracting over effects, so that functions can be written generically to operate on data structures with varying levels of mutability.

  This document, titled "An Effect System Proposal for C2y," proposes an extension to the C2y programming language (a hypothetical successor to C2x, itself a successor to C17/C11, aiming to modernize C) by introducing an effect system. This system aims to provide a more structured and reliable way to manage side effects within C programs, enhancing code clarity, maintainability, and potentially enabling compiler optimizations.

  The core of the proposal revolves around explicitly declaring the potential side effects of functions using effect specifications. These specifications, integrated into function declarations, enumerate the possible side effects a function might have. Examples of such effects include allocating memory, accessing files, throwing exceptions, and modifying global state. A distinct "pure" effect specification designates functions with no observable side effects beyond their return value.

  The effect system operates based on a set of pre-defined effect keywords, allowing for granular control over side effect categorization. For instance, separate effects might differentiate between reading and writing to files, enabling finer-grained analysis. The proposal introduces new syntax for declaring these effects within function signatures, using a dedicated keyword (like effects) followed by a parenthesized, comma-separated list of effect specifiers.

  The proposal outlines how effect specifications interact with function calls. A function's declared effects must encompass all possible side effects that could occur during its execution, including those of any functions it calls. The compiler verifies these effect specifications, ensuring that no undeclared side effects are present. This static checking prevents accidental or undocumented side effects, leading to more robust and predictable code.

  Beyond basic effect declarations, the proposal delves into more advanced features, such as effect polymorphism. This mechanism allows functions to operate on data with different effect specifications, promoting code reuse without compromising the strictness of the effect system. It introduces the concept of effect variables within function declarations, which act as placeholders for specific effects that are determined at the call site.

  The document further explores the implications of effect systems for existing C features. It addresses how effects interact with function pointers, suggesting the inclusion of effect specifications within function pointer types. It also discusses the handling of effects within variadic functions and macros, recognizing the challenges these present and outlining potential solutions.

  Finally, the proposal considers the interaction between effects and exception handling. It proposes a connection between thrown exceptions and the effect system, allowing exceptions to be declared as potential side effects and enabling more comprehensive error management within the framework of the effect system. This integration ensures that exceptions are treated as part of the overall side effect analysis, further contributing to the reliability and predictability of the code. The document concludes by suggesting areas for future research and development, such as integration with concurrency features and the exploration of more sophisticated effect analysis techniques.

  • C
  • C2y
  • C2x
  • programming language
  • effect systems
  • type systems
  • static analysis
  • language design
  • proposal
  • WG14
  • ISO
  • standardization
  • Functional Programming
  • side effects
  • algebraic effects

  Summary of Comments ( 6 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42750517

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News comments on the C2y effect system proposal express a mix of skepticism and cautious interest. Several commenters question the practicality and performance implications of implementing such a system in C, citing the language's existing complexity and the potential for significant overhead. Concerns are raised about the learning curve for developers and the possibility of introducing subtle bugs. Some find the proposal intriguing from a research perspective but doubt its widespread adoption. A few express interest in exploring the potential benefits of improved code analysis and error detection, particularly for concurrency and memory management, though acknowledge the challenges involved. Overall, the consensus leans towards viewing the proposal as an interesting academic exercise with limited real-world applicability in its current form.

  The Hacker News post "An effect system proposal for C2y" links to a 2023 draft of N3317, a proposal for adding an effect system to a future version of the C programming language (then tentatively called C2y, now C2x). The discussion on Hacker News is relatively brief, consisting of only a few comments, and doesn't delve very deep into the technical details of the proposal.

  One commenter expresses skepticism about the proposal's practicality, wondering whether the added complexity of an effect system would outweigh its benefits for typical C programming tasks. They question whether the kind of guaranteed safety that effect systems provide is truly necessary or desirable in the C ecosystem, where performance and low-level control are often prioritized. This commenter explicitly states they would not want to use an effects system in C, even if it were fully baked and easy to use. They view effects systems as more suited to functional languages, and fundamentally at odds with the design ethos and intended use cases of C.

  Another commenter focuses on the evolution of C standards, noting the long period between revisions and the challenges in introducing significant changes to a language with such a large and established codebase. They also point out that alternative languages or extensions already offer some form of effect systems or related features, implying that developers needing such features might prefer those options rather than waiting for a potentially complex and slow-to-be-adopted change in the C standard itself. They mention Zig as a modern C-like language and Rust as two examples with stricter, more sophisticated type and safety features.

  Finally, one commenter briefly remarks on the proposal's age (dating back to 2023), suggesting that its status and likelihood of incorporation into a future C standard are uncertain. This comment highlights the long process of standardization and the possibility that the proposal might be superseded by other developments in the meantime.