Thank you for the excellent and critical questions. You've pointed out the biggest flaw in my first article: it failed to properly connect the proposed concepts to the broader "myriad of problems" in the microservice ecosystem.
I have written a new, much more detailed manifesto that is almost entirely dedicated to explaining that connection and the architectural vision. I believe it addresses your first point directly.
But I also want to be transparent with you in particular. You asked about the low-level details—the "how" of C# in a non-managed world, memory management, and how it compares to Rust. You are right to ask for this. That new manifesto is still the philosophical 'why', but I want to assure you that I have already completed a full technical whitepaper that covers the 'how'.
The challenge is that the whitepaper is currently in my native language (Vietnamese), is quite long (around 150k characters), and I am still revising it before I can begin the translation.
So, I would like to propose a path forward. First, I would be grateful if you could read the new manifesto and give me your honest critique there. It lays out the complete architectural argument.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45477324
If, after reading it, you trust the vision a bit more, I hope you'll be patient for a short while longer until I can properly translate the technical whitepaper which addresses your remaining concerns.
Alternatively, if you're curious to see the raw draft now, you can likely find it by searching my username plus the keyword "Viblo". You could then use an LLM for a preview translation, but I must give a strong disclaimer that I cannot promise the quality of an automated translation of an unrevised draft.
Thank you again for the sharp feedback. It's exactly the kind of critique that is needed.
I wanted to reply to you directly. I was truly impressed by your comments. You understood the precise, deep technical problem I was aiming at—the GC's 'stop-the-world' pauses affecting even non-GC threads—even from my admittedly clumsy and brief initial post. Thank you for that.
What I failed to convey properly, however, is that this performance mechanism is just one small consequence of a much larger idea. It's a foundational piece of a complete architectural model I've designed to address the fundamental pains of the current microservice paradigm.
I have now finished a full manifesto that lays out this entire vision. It includes a deep critique of our current ecosystem and presents the philosophy for a new style of programming intended to solve these core issues.
Given the depth of your understanding from that first article, I would be genuinely honored to get your critical feedback on the full proposal. If you're interested, the new post and discussion are here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45477324
Thanks again for your incredibly insightful comments.
You've hit on the exact problem. The friction of interoperability is the real wall.
Now, imagine if that friction disappeared. Imagine 90% of your codebase is safe, using traditional collections and strings, while only the critical 10% uses high-performance, native data types. What if moving between these two worlds was a natural, compiler-guaranteed feature, not a manual, error-prone task? How amazing would that be?
This vision of seamless coexistence is the core of my proposal. I've detailed it in a new, more focused post and would love for you to take a look.
Thank you for your feedback. I apologize if my original article was misleading. I can see how its focus on performance aspects made it seem like just another language feature proposal, which was not my primary intention.
My main goal is to address the architectural complexity of microservices. Based on the feedback, I've written a much more detailed and focused follow-up that concentrates solely on that vision.
Hi all, my apologies for the very late reply. I honestly didn't expect this post to get any attention and haven't checked back until now.
I want to clarify that the ideas in this manifesto are entirely my own. As I mentioned in the preface, English is not my native language, so I used AI tools to translate my original text. This is likely why some parts have an "AI-like" feel.
Thank you for the feedback; it's genuinely helpful. The substance of the work is what I truly wanted to share.
Thank you for the excellent and critical questions. You've pointed out the biggest flaw in my first article: it failed to properly connect the proposed concepts to the broader "myriad of problems" in the microservice ecosystem.
I have written a new, much more detailed manifesto that is almost entirely dedicated to explaining that connection and the architectural vision. I believe it addresses your first point directly.
But I also want to be transparent with you in particular. You asked about the low-level details—the "how" of C# in a non-managed world, memory management, and how it compares to Rust. You are right to ask for this. That new manifesto is still the philosophical 'why', but I want to assure you that I have already completed a full technical whitepaper that covers the 'how'.
The challenge is that the whitepaper is currently in my native language (Vietnamese), is quite long (around 150k characters), and I am still revising it before I can begin the translation.
So, I would like to propose a path forward. First, I would be grateful if you could read the new manifesto and give me your honest critique there. It lays out the complete architectural argument. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45477324
If, after reading it, you trust the vision a bit more, I hope you'll be patient for a short while longer until I can properly translate the technical whitepaper which addresses your remaining concerns.
Alternatively, if you're curious to see the raw draft now, you can likely find it by searching my username plus the keyword "Viblo". You could then use an LLM for a preview translation, but I must give a strong disclaimer that I cannot promise the quality of an automated translation of an unrevised draft.
Thank you again for the sharp feedback. It's exactly the kind of critique that is needed.