Still thinking lala about programming languages. Why do we store them as plain text and not in a database?
You could even hold old versions of functions and expressions in the database.
@hopeless Is primitive. Very primitive. Still useful for projects today, but could you imagine us using it in one hundred years time?
@Havvy ...git is quite deep... and it has the advantage it exists and is very robust.
Our descendents will probably work with systems fundamentally different, requiring new approaches, and would laugh at our quaint ideas from the stone age, same as 1920 computing arrangements are not useful today.
@Havvy I get that this is rhetorical, but I think the actual answer to why is because the "files are sequences of bytes" design of unix makes it impossible to robustly abstract away the details of serialization
@Havvy package managers are a kind of database
@eric A database at the highest levels of abstraction of a unit of code. I'm saying store the lowest units of code in a database. Each expression a row.
@Havvy I understand. Since code is often represented as an AST, it would be more natural to use a database that stores trees. Putting trees in an SQL database is kinda kludgey. It would be neat to see an editor that operated on AST nodes instead of just bytes.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!