The problem with programming and how to fix it(alarmingdevelopment.org)
alarmingdevelopment.org
The problem with programming and how to fix it
https://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=1173
98 comments
> Unfortunately application programming got trampled in the internet gold rush.
No, it didn't
I think if you don't rely on memory but examine the history as Jonathan Edwards has done, you would be surprised to find that the late 1990's was, indeed, a big cliff in terms of application development innovation. You can argue the reasons -- maybe it's not about the internet gold rush -- but you would have to do a small fraction of his research to start to convince me.
> As a result the internet age has seen an exponential increase in the complexity of programming, as well as its exclusivity.
It really hasn't
Frankly, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Before the web was popularized, designing a layout meant a using a simple layout tool. Now it's a stack that is at least HTML, CSS and JS, and often more. We're doing more, to be sure, but you can't honestly claim, without a deep ignorance of the past, that it's easier or more inclusive.
No, it didn't
I think if you don't rely on memory but examine the history as Jonathan Edwards has done, you would be surprised to find that the late 1990's was, indeed, a big cliff in terms of application development innovation. You can argue the reasons -- maybe it's not about the internet gold rush -- but you would have to do a small fraction of his research to start to convince me.
> As a result the internet age has seen an exponential increase in the complexity of programming, as well as its exclusivity.
It really hasn't
Frankly, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Before the web was popularized, designing a layout meant a using a simple layout tool. Now it's a stack that is at least HTML, CSS and JS, and often more. We're doing more, to be sure, but you can't honestly claim, without a deep ignorance of the past, that it's easier or more inclusive.
> Frankly, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Before the web was popularized, designing a layout meant a using a simple layout tool. Now it's a stack that is at least HTML, CSS and JS, and often more. We're doing more, to be sure, but you can't honestly claim, without a deep ignorance of the past, that it's easier or more inclusive.
Since we're on the topic of UI, I think this is actually a great place to discuss what has happened to programming.
You used to be able to use a simple layout tool. But we traded that away for a substantially increased level of visual sophistication that wasn't practical with the predecessor technologies. For visual sophistication, you had a couple other quite complex options: render it yourself, or for about 15 years, use Flash.
However, we've also smoothed out the learning curve a lot. Even if you have to learn the HTML/CSS/JS triad, we've figured out how to teach it more incrementally.
Even UI in 3d games has gotten dramatically easier. These days you can hack something together in Unity with barely any coding knowledge. When I first started learning 3-d programming 10 years ago, your options were basically to learn C++.
Maybe it's not a 100% obvious conclusion, but I think on the balance of things it really has gotten easier and more inclusive.
Since we're on the topic of UI, I think this is actually a great place to discuss what has happened to programming.
You used to be able to use a simple layout tool. But we traded that away for a substantially increased level of visual sophistication that wasn't practical with the predecessor technologies. For visual sophistication, you had a couple other quite complex options: render it yourself, or for about 15 years, use Flash.
However, we've also smoothed out the learning curve a lot. Even if you have to learn the HTML/CSS/JS triad, we've figured out how to teach it more incrementally.
Even UI in 3d games has gotten dramatically easier. These days you can hack something together in Unity with barely any coding knowledge. When I first started learning 3-d programming 10 years ago, your options were basically to learn C++.
Maybe it's not a 100% obvious conclusion, but I think on the balance of things it really has gotten easier and more inclusive.
> I think if you don't rely on memory but examine the history as Jonathan Edwards has done, you would be surprised to find that the late 1990's was, indeed, a big cliff in terms of application development innovation.
The phase change was later, and it wasn't so much a cliff in innovation but a change in focus. There are plenty of programmers “using languages and tools designed for simplicity of learning and use in solving relatively pedestrian problems” still, and plenty of things being built to support them—they're the people doing CRUD apps in Ruby/Rails or building utilities for simple problems in Python that, as Edwards described being historically the case, the people doing “systems programming” continuously look down on.
(There's also a bigger huge group of people doing what is more like what was actually described as application programming historically, that is, solving relatively pedestrian problems in languages designed for industrial use rather than ease of learning, like the people building the guts of enterprise applications that don't require scale, and are largely CRUD plus business rules, using C# now, or the people doing LOB apps in any of a variety of [often proprietary] languages historically.)
> Before the web was popularized, designing a layout meant a using a simple layout tool.
One might argue that the complexity of design and the complexity of programming are different things, or one might observe that graphical UI builders exist for the Web (including as part of platforms designed specifically to support “application programming" for the Web), and that people doing the less sexy kinds of programming use them all the time.
The phase change was later, and it wasn't so much a cliff in innovation but a change in focus. There are plenty of programmers “using languages and tools designed for simplicity of learning and use in solving relatively pedestrian problems” still, and plenty of things being built to support them—they're the people doing CRUD apps in Ruby/Rails or building utilities for simple problems in Python that, as Edwards described being historically the case, the people doing “systems programming” continuously look down on.
(There's also a bigger huge group of people doing what is more like what was actually described as application programming historically, that is, solving relatively pedestrian problems in languages designed for industrial use rather than ease of learning, like the people building the guts of enterprise applications that don't require scale, and are largely CRUD plus business rules, using C# now, or the people doing LOB apps in any of a variety of [often proprietary] languages historically.)
> Before the web was popularized, designing a layout meant a using a simple layout tool.
One might argue that the complexity of design and the complexity of programming are different things, or one might observe that graphical UI builders exist for the Web (including as part of platforms designed specifically to support “application programming" for the Web), and that people doing the less sexy kinds of programming use them all the time.
HTML in my opinion indeed is both much more accessible and more inclusive than many technologies that preceded it, particularly layout tools.
QuarkXPress, LaTex, visual GUI builders. These are different layout tools for very different purposes but they all have in common that they’re not as accessible (with Delphi / RAD Studio in the GUI builder category as the only exception that comes to mind) as “View source” or a simple text editor.
Granted, setting up a new web app with a modern framework such as Angular or React is way more complex than that. However, you also have tools like WordPress that allow you to publish content in a decent layout with little to no experience at all.
QuarkXPress, LaTex, visual GUI builders. These are different layout tools for very different purposes but they all have in common that they’re not as accessible (with Delphi / RAD Studio in the GUI builder category as the only exception that comes to mind) as “View source” or a simple text editor.
Granted, setting up a new web app with a modern framework such as Angular or React is way more complex than that. However, you also have tools like WordPress that allow you to publish content in a decent layout with little to no experience at all.
_Frankly, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Before the web was popularized, designing a layout meant a using a simple layout tool. Now it's a stack that is at least HTML, CSS and JS, and often more. We're doing more, to be sure, but you can't honestly claim, without a deep ignorance of the past, that it's easier or more inclusive._
Maybe developing web application is harder now (and i may disagree, react and node are really an improvement compared to 2013 SenchaJS imho). Also, CMS now exist for minimal programming.
But you're looking application-wise, not tooling-wise:
- Javascript is safer and easier to use with the last ES iteration (ore maybe it's just me, but my last pet project was really easy to complete with the new javascript).
- OpenBLAS now exist, and libraries were written around this fantastic piece of software. Compare a jupyter notebook to matlab, and appreciate how easy it is to do math on a computer now (and i had to use matlab in college for my math bachelor degree, so i KNOW it is less complex for young mathematicians right now)
- I've wrote stuff in C89 (gcc option, for school related work). Then i was allowed so use C99 (still for school). C99 was easier to write and to optimize. Also, my current collegues were using C in the early 90s, and for them debugging was a pain, while to me, C is one of the easiest language to debug thank to gdb (using the TUI or not).
- Sytem building automatisation is easier (not painless yet, but easier). You can argue it's more complex, but automated stuff i always more complex than manual (but faster too). And in the 90s, system automation was Perl job. I like Perl, but let's agree ansible is less complex.
- System monitoring is easier now too.
And i'm a relatively young programmer, with 2 languages i'm comfortable using for professional work (3 with bash, 4 with ansible, if it count). I'm pretty sure experienced programmers who can use other stuff than C and python have plenty of other experiences. Also, consider compiling your own kernel, writing your own filesystem and/or paquet manager. Would you rather do it in 2018 or in the early 00's? It is a second year project in my school. Second year. It use to be a master degree assessment in college.
Tools are easier to use, and information easier to get.
Maybe developing web application is harder now (and i may disagree, react and node are really an improvement compared to 2013 SenchaJS imho). Also, CMS now exist for minimal programming.
But you're looking application-wise, not tooling-wise:
- Javascript is safer and easier to use with the last ES iteration (ore maybe it's just me, but my last pet project was really easy to complete with the new javascript).
- OpenBLAS now exist, and libraries were written around this fantastic piece of software. Compare a jupyter notebook to matlab, and appreciate how easy it is to do math on a computer now (and i had to use matlab in college for my math bachelor degree, so i KNOW it is less complex for young mathematicians right now)
- I've wrote stuff in C89 (gcc option, for school related work). Then i was allowed so use C99 (still for school). C99 was easier to write and to optimize. Also, my current collegues were using C in the early 90s, and for them debugging was a pain, while to me, C is one of the easiest language to debug thank to gdb (using the TUI or not).
- Sytem building automatisation is easier (not painless yet, but easier). You can argue it's more complex, but automated stuff i always more complex than manual (but faster too). And in the 90s, system automation was Perl job. I like Perl, but let's agree ansible is less complex.
- System monitoring is easier now too.
And i'm a relatively young programmer, with 2 languages i'm comfortable using for professional work (3 with bash, 4 with ansible, if it count). I'm pretty sure experienced programmers who can use other stuff than C and python have plenty of other experiences. Also, consider compiling your own kernel, writing your own filesystem and/or paquet manager. Would you rather do it in 2018 or in the early 00's? It is a second year project in my school. Second year. It use to be a master degree assessment in college.
Tools are easier to use, and information easier to get.
Lemme use an analogy: Why is building a house not accessible to all?
Surely house building could be more like building with legos.
Building a proper house is so much more that just piling rocks mixed with mortar. You have to take into account the ground composition, moisture, light, ventilation, red tape, usability, safety, etc. In other words: it takes a huge set of skill. You can use advanced tools, like a tractor shovel for digging the base but that requires even more skill.
We just have to accept that doing complex stuff requires lots of training to do it properly. The more advanced tools you use, the more specific training you need but the more complex stuff you can build in shorter time.
As for programming. Abstract thinking and clear, explicit communication of ideas is not trivial to automate. This is problem even between two persons (just think about trying to decipher what your sales person or customer actually wants), let alone between a human and a machine. It’s a form of art, not some mechanical process you automate using an array of boxes.
Building a proper house is so much more that just piling rocks mixed with mortar. You have to take into account the ground composition, moisture, light, ventilation, red tape, usability, safety, etc. In other words: it takes a huge set of skill. You can use advanced tools, like a tractor shovel for digging the base but that requires even more skill.
We just have to accept that doing complex stuff requires lots of training to do it properly. The more advanced tools you use, the more specific training you need but the more complex stuff you can build in shorter time.
As for programming. Abstract thinking and clear, explicit communication of ideas is not trivial to automate. This is problem even between two persons (just think about trying to decipher what your sales person or customer actually wants), let alone between a human and a machine. It’s a form of art, not some mechanical process you automate using an array of boxes.
Not all programming is akin to building a house. Some of it is similar to hanging a shelf in the kitchen. Why should it take an architect to drill the holes and fasten the wall plugs to hang a spice rack?
Sure it might need some training, but it should be the kind that can be explained in a DIY TV show.
Sure it might need some training, but it should be the kind that can be explained in a DIY TV show.
Why should it take an architect to drill the holes and fasten the wall plugs to hang a spice rack?
But the person hanging the shelf should have enough of a grasp of mechanics so it doesn't fall down. They should know enough basic physics and chemistry so they don't install something prone to corroding. If they encounter asbestos or old lead paint while installing, they should know enough to know what to do about that, and what not to do.
But the person hanging the shelf should have enough of a grasp of mechanics so it doesn't fall down. They should know enough basic physics and chemistry so they don't install something prone to corroding. If they encounter asbestos or old lead paint while installing, they should know enough to know what to do about that, and what not to do.
Most of the work in programming is in describing (in very strict and pendantic terms) how different systems interact with each other and how the data flows from one end to another. The actual work of moving the data and doing all the calculations is handled by machines. In that sense, the work done in programming is designing and integrating systems, not the execution of it. In your analogy, installing a shelf would be more like installing Photoshop (which we can presumably agree is actually simpler than installing a shelf). Most people do not design their own shelf, select the most appropriate fasteners, source raw materials and send it to manufacturing to be mass-produced. A shelf is also a relatively simple piece of furniture. What about a desk-drawer or a closet? Sure, you can buy the raw materials and power tools at any hardware store, but is it trivial for anyone to actually design and build usable (and desirable) furniture from pieces of plywood?
True that, but those do-it-yourself people use different tools and methods compared to professional architects and builders. So maybe the original article should be read as ”why there are not more dedicated, simple tools for non-educated do-it-yourself tinkerers”. A sensible question as such, but I don’t buy the conclusion that we should blame the nerds / academia.
If some business owner finds a way to monetize such tools, nerds will be happy to implement. Just as those do-it-yourself fix-your-home books and tools have been monetized and implemented.
If some business owner finds a way to monetize such tools, nerds will be happy to implement. Just as those do-it-yourself fix-your-home books and tools have been monetized and implemented.
Up until the 19th century, construction was an extremely bespoke process. There was no standardization on tools and materials which made everything much more difficult. It was always hard, but it's much, much easier now -- and maybe there's a way it can be even easier still with 3D printing techniques.
Saying, we can't make it simpler is a cop-out. It used to be simpler. The question isn't whether we can do better (we know we can) but how to find the will, effort and funding to accomplish it.
Saying, we can't make it simpler is a cop-out. It used to be simpler. The question isn't whether we can do better (we know we can) but how to find the will, effort and funding to accomplish it.
I’m actually saying that we have made it simpler (compare implementing full-stack web service using punch cards vs modern languages and frameworks), but at the same time it requires more education to use the new tools and methods (one machine code manual vs all the cources and documentation those languages, algorithms, and frameworks require).
> As for programming. Abstract thinking and clear, explicit communication of ideas is not trivial to automate.
There are many more people capable of abstract and clear thinking than there are programmers. IMO we should be giving them the tools necessary for them to not build programs, but to solve problems in their field with computers.
There are many more people capable of abstract and clear thinking than there are programmers. IMO we should be giving them the tools necessary for them to not build programs, but to solve problems in their field with computers.
Sure there are, but not all athletic people end up playing hockey. I don’t see how that invalidates the point that people without those qualities can not become programmers, no matter the tools available.
edit: to add, those people already have the tools they need to automate the things they want. They just lack the will to learn to use the tools.
edit2: to continue the analogy. I can drill a hole to a wall but if I need to dig a big hole, I can either learn to drive a tractor shovel or hire a professional to do it. But I’m not complaining why tractors are so hard to drive..
edit: to add, those people already have the tools they need to automate the things they want. They just lack the will to learn to use the tools.
edit2: to continue the analogy. I can drill a hole to a wall but if I need to dig a big hole, I can either learn to drive a tractor shovel or hire a professional to do it. But I’m not complaining why tractors are so hard to drive..
Simplifying software is a fantastic goal, but blaming the situation on an "isolated subculture of nerdy young men" is the opposite of helpful. Also, I would seriously consider the fact that some things are simply complicated and there's no conspiracy behind it. A lot of very smart people work very hard to find ways of taming this beast. It's just hard.
I’m interested as to whether there really is complexity that can’t be simplified in general.
Here’s an obvious example where it could be: web apps are mostly conceptually simple: a thin client which is basically a UI framework talks to a process on a remote server. So you need something to develop the UI and something for the server. But instead of the “web UI toolkit” (which could mostly be a graphical tool) we have JavaScript, CSS, HTML, jquery, a gazillion hacked front end frameworks trying to (imperfectly) fix the mistakes of everything below it, a whole system for preprocessing, packaging, running tasks, deploying - just for a UI. And all those tools need customising, rely on knowledge of a bunch of random tools and languages and file editing.
So we could definitely improve 10x in making “web apps” or whatever you would replace them with something much much simpler (even if for a subset of use cases). And that’s just one example.
Here’s an obvious example where it could be: web apps are mostly conceptually simple: a thin client which is basically a UI framework talks to a process on a remote server. So you need something to develop the UI and something for the server. But instead of the “web UI toolkit” (which could mostly be a graphical tool) we have JavaScript, CSS, HTML, jquery, a gazillion hacked front end frameworks trying to (imperfectly) fix the mistakes of everything below it, a whole system for preprocessing, packaging, running tasks, deploying - just for a UI. And all those tools need customising, rely on knowledge of a bunch of random tools and languages and file editing.
So we could definitely improve 10x in making “web apps” or whatever you would replace them with something much much simpler (even if for a subset of use cases). And that’s just one example.
conceptually simple, perhaps, but in practice they are far from it. HTML, CSS, JS, and web server tools are complex because web pages are extremely parameterized over different content, client sizes and types, user preferences, and data. From being a long time web developer, the graphical layout tools are basically only useful for graphic design, because they output code that only works for the exact layout and content initially created, which is typically useless for anything but static content.
I think the difficulty of making tools for abstracting web content are related to the difficulties of creating more intuitive programming tools.
I think the difficulty of making tools for abstracting web content are related to the difficulties of creating more intuitive programming tools.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I was thinking at a more abstract level:
> because web pages are extremely parameterized over different content, client sizes and types, user preferences, and data
You've taken this as a given. Why does it have to be like that? If we're defining the standards, we can make the web whatever we want it to be. And I think if your explanation of why it is complicated is the above (and I think that's only a small part of why it is such a mess), then let's modify some of those assumptions to make it easier to simplify.
I was thinking at a more abstract level:
> because web pages are extremely parameterized over different content, client sizes and types, user preferences, and data
You've taken this as a given. Why does it have to be like that? If we're defining the standards, we can make the web whatever we want it to be. And I think if your explanation of why it is complicated is the above (and I think that's only a small part of why it is such a mess), then let's modify some of those assumptions to make it easier to simplify.
That, and also needs beyond the initial creation: Adding new types of content, modifying things without having to start from scratch, being easy to diff for change reviews and for merge-conflict resolution, supporting search engine crawlers, deep links, permanent links, interacting well with the back button. And that's without getting into the cases in which you have content that updates in real time, user content, the need to support offline mode, or any of the things that blur the website / application line.
Yes, it's quite complicated now (but it's getting better).
But it's not as easy as replacing it with something simpler. If you do, you will discover all the things you can't do with it. So you start to improve it, add features, etc. And after a short time, it's probably even more complex as html/css and still not as flexible and powerful.
But it's not as easy as replacing it with something simpler. If you do, you will discover all the things you can't do with it. So you start to improve it, add features, etc. And after a short time, it's probably even more complex as html/css and still not as flexible and powerful.
Web apps are mostly conceptually simple: a thin client which is basically a UI framework talks to a process on a remote server. So you need something to develop the UI and something for the server. But instead of the “web UI toolkit” (which could mostly be a graphical tool) we have JavaScript, CSS, HTML, jquery, a gazillion hacked front end frameworks trying to (imperfectly) fix the mistakes of everything below it, a whole system for preprocessing, packaging, running tasks, deploying - just for a UI.
Exactly. So what do we have coming next? WebAssembly.
Exactly. So what do we have coming next? WebAssembly.
WebAssembly sounds great, although you could argue that running things in a sandboxed JVM in the 1990s was basically there already.
But it doesn't magically remove the problems we have made, for no real reason, at the front end in terms of UI.
But it doesn't magically remove the problems we have made, for no real reason, at the front end in terms of UI.
> Programming today is exactly what you’d expect to get by paying an isolated subculture of nerdy young men to entertain themselves for fifty years. You get a cross between Dungeons & Dragons and Rubik’s Cube, elaborated a thousand-fold.
This is vague and insulting.
Many of us programmers spend a lot of energy to keep systems simple, to a point that one could mistakenly conclude that they were easy to write.
We don't dream of having to maintain complex machineries reminding us of Rubik's cubes. We consider maintainance nightmares and hard-to-understand systems as failures, not goals. We don't love complexity, we hate it (but the less experienced of us haven't got the chance to fully develop this hatred).
This is vague and insulting.
Many of us programmers spend a lot of energy to keep systems simple, to a point that one could mistakenly conclude that they were easy to write.
We don't dream of having to maintain complex machineries reminding us of Rubik's cubes. We consider maintainance nightmares and hard-to-understand systems as failures, not goals. We don't love complexity, we hate it (but the less experienced of us haven't got the chance to fully develop this hatred).
> Programming today is exactly what you’d expect to get by paying an isolated subculture of nerdy young men to entertain themselves for fifty years. You get a cross between Dungeons & Dragons and Rubik’s Cube, elaborated a thousand-fold.
This is vague and insulting.
As someone who can solve a Rubik's cube and has programmed and played D&D since the version predating the "Advanced" ones, I think it's spot on!
Many of us programmers spend a lot of energy to keep systems simple, to a point that one could mistakenly conclude that they were easy to write.
I've seen code like that. It's the exception, not the rule!
We don't dream of having to maintain complex machineries reminding us of Rubik's cubes
Really? Because I've seen lots of 20-something programmers trot out a bit of code because it's "neat" without regard to cost/benefit within the project and within the current codebase.
We consider maintainance nightmares and hard-to-understand systems as failures, not goals.
I see lots of programmers who blame the skill and intelligence of their fellows while not demonstrating self-awareness by examining how everyone's participation in the system creates the mess in an emergent fashion -- then go on to fail to solve it.
We don't love complexity, we hate it (but the less experienced of us haven't got the chance to fully develop this hatred).
Plenty of the younguns just straight out fetishize complexity. Overtly. Enthusiastically!
This is vague and insulting.
As someone who can solve a Rubik's cube and has programmed and played D&D since the version predating the "Advanced" ones, I think it's spot on!
Many of us programmers spend a lot of energy to keep systems simple, to a point that one could mistakenly conclude that they were easy to write.
I've seen code like that. It's the exception, not the rule!
We don't dream of having to maintain complex machineries reminding us of Rubik's cubes
Really? Because I've seen lots of 20-something programmers trot out a bit of code because it's "neat" without regard to cost/benefit within the project and within the current codebase.
We consider maintainance nightmares and hard-to-understand systems as failures, not goals.
I see lots of programmers who blame the skill and intelligence of their fellows while not demonstrating self-awareness by examining how everyone's participation in the system creates the mess in an emergent fashion -- then go on to fail to solve it.
We don't love complexity, we hate it (but the less experienced of us haven't got the chance to fully develop this hatred).
Plenty of the younguns just straight out fetishize complexity. Overtly. Enthusiastically!
I too, don't understand why people think anyone could be a programmer if it wasn't for the existing programmers. What is considered a good grade in school? I think most parents would be happy with their children coming home with 90% grades. That's 1 error in 10 attempts. That is a pretty abysmal fault rate in an actual computer program. Even most experienced programmers fail to consider everything that can go wrong with a system, but that is what is required to make fault tolerant systems. There is no silver bullet[1], and I wish people that wrote articles like this would go out and read that essay and actually attempt to tackle the thesis of that essay instead of just asserting the opposite.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet
You do this by involving mathematical proofs at every stage. That is expensive, but sometimes done.
Strict functional languages are a step in the right direction. As are verifiers as done in Rust.
Strict functional languages are a step in the right direction. As are verifiers as done in Rust.
Some use cases and bugs are not amenable to proof. For example, how do you mathematically prove that your rendering engine is cutting off the bottom of the g of your new font?
Not all requirements of a system can be expressed a priori. I think proofs will never be enough to make a bug free system. Working as intended is a very frustrating response to a perceived bug for a user.
Not all requirements of a system can be expressed a priori. I think proofs will never be enough to make a bug free system. Working as intended is a very frustrating response to a perceived bug for a user.
I do not think that is his point though; it is not that you dream or like making that complexity, it is that you are forced to make it by current tooling and languages. You are and people you know probably fall into the group of exceptions that can handle that kind of complexity (to some extent) and try to simplify it. In the non HN, corporate world of a lot of companies, this is not the case. Many large corporates do not do version management, code reviews, refactoring or anything you consider standard. You are the exception. And that is mostly because of the tooling; for most beginners React/Node simply is far more challenging than Visual Basic or HTML/PHP. For people who just want to solve a small problem and share that solution they made, learning 3-4 languages and installing bucketloads of tooling and libraries is just not a step forward.
By using that kind of tooling you are already acknowledging what the article says in some ways. By using programming languages and editors that let you figure out what the computer can do much faster (like figuring out, at edit time, the result of a bunch of if then else statements for instance), you are getting further away from simple.
And yet this is our normal and it hardly changes over time. So yeah, as someone who has programmed for over 30 years I see the D&D and Rubiks Cube comparison. We do not like it but that does not make it less true; it was easier to solve simple problems ‘fullstack’ when fullstack was 1 language and 1 simple install that had everything; in my opinion we did not evolve well here. It was easier to create most (No I am not talking about a Facebook; that is far from most) things when you did not have to worry about libraries or packaging for deployment. It always was a Rubiks Cube, but we are getting more D&D by the week imho.
And then there are the sort of things Edwards likes to experiment with; relevant live feedback during coding with enforceable prompts to repair simple things that your brain is just not (by far) as good or as fast at as a computer is.
By using that kind of tooling you are already acknowledging what the article says in some ways. By using programming languages and editors that let you figure out what the computer can do much faster (like figuring out, at edit time, the result of a bunch of if then else statements for instance), you are getting further away from simple.
And yet this is our normal and it hardly changes over time. So yeah, as someone who has programmed for over 30 years I see the D&D and Rubiks Cube comparison. We do not like it but that does not make it less true; it was easier to solve simple problems ‘fullstack’ when fullstack was 1 language and 1 simple install that had everything; in my opinion we did not evolve well here. It was easier to create most (No I am not talking about a Facebook; that is far from most) things when you did not have to worry about libraries or packaging for deployment. It always was a Rubiks Cube, but we are getting more D&D by the week imho.
And then there are the sort of things Edwards likes to experiment with; relevant live feedback during coding with enforceable prompts to repair simple things that your brain is just not (by far) as good or as fast at as a computer is.
This is vague and insulting.
Good. It should be. Get mad about that. Get so mad that you devote time and effort to fixing it.
Programming compared to other disciplines is what might arise from a Lord of the Flies situation. Like the end of that novel, we should stop, fall at the feet of a comparison of programming to other disciplinnes, and weep tears of shame.
Good. It should be. Get mad about that. Get so mad that you devote time and effort to fixing it.
Programming compared to other disciplines is what might arise from a Lord of the Flies situation. Like the end of that novel, we should stop, fall at the feet of a comparison of programming to other disciplinnes, and weep tears of shame.
> Get so mad that you devote time and effort to fixing it.
Interestingly, I feel that insulting people is one of the worst possible ways to get them to change their behaviour.
Interestingly, I feel that insulting people is one of the worst possible ways to get them to change their behaviour.
But if you're so cynical you just want to help people more quickly seek their own doom...then pass the popcorn! This should be good!
He's not actively insulting anyone; he's calling a spade a spade, he's telling the truth, and if you find that insulting then change that reality.
The person you replied to called it insulting. It's not really about what you think they should do; all I'm saying is what I think it's likely people will do. Formulating criticism in a way that the people it applies to are not insulted is, I think, the best way to actually get them to fix it.
It's hard, I know. But all I'd do when someone refers to Rubik's Cubes and DnD is shrug it off and think it doesn't apply to me.
It's hard, I know. But all I'd do when someone refers to Rubik's Cubes and DnD is shrug it off and think it doesn't apply to me.
The easiest fix is to debunk the article. Which reflects the author not spending enough time writing kidding critical software and too much with cool startup kids.
There is no technical solution to a social problem caused by hiring cheap young and naive programmers.
There is no technical solution to a social problem caused by hiring cheap young and naive programmers.
While I agree that it's a social problem I think it's more of an industry problem than a hiring problem. The industry generates sales by putting new tech first over solving business problems. So you have customers like big companies and consulting companies that hire "cheap young and naive programmers" with little experience who are willing to jump any hype train. After all it is easier to just learn the latest bunch of technologies opposed to recap decades of computing history. Then the young programmers implement proof of concepts in, say, cloud, containers, serverless and BigCo execs are satisfied because they can proof they are trying out new stuff. It doesn't matter that it's not maintainable or sustainable because it's thrown away after one year anyway, when the cycle starts over.
Obviously I am exaggerating but it's still a huge part of reality.
Obviously I am exaggerating but it's still a huge part of reality.
The author is Jonathan Edwards who was a fellow at MIT and is an eminent Computer Scientist.
The article stands true on its own, and is not a simple indictment of a class of programmers.
The article stands true on its own, and is not a simple indictment of a class of programmers.
Well, if anything, MIT actually is the startup and cool stuff mine lately in addition to strong CS.
Programming can be made as accessible as spreadsheets to common people when they become as good at baseline logic as good programmers. (This is not that high of a bar actually for your average cheap coder.)
Designing CRUD apps has been automated before, as have been macro systems like iMacros or AutoIt or the venerable Windows Recorder. RAD tools still exist but common people don't want them. Graphical junk like LabVIEW also still exists.
Automating modifying applications runs counter to job security and would enforce a specific architectural decisions forever... Too expensive unless it is for mission critical software.
Programming can be made as accessible as spreadsheets to common people when they become as good at baseline logic as good programmers. (This is not that high of a bar actually for your average cheap coder.)
Designing CRUD apps has been automated before, as have been macro systems like iMacros or AutoIt or the venerable Windows Recorder. RAD tools still exist but common people don't want them. Graphical junk like LabVIEW also still exists.
Automating modifying applications runs counter to job security and would enforce a specific architectural decisions forever... Too expensive unless it is for mission critical software.
By the way, claiming a statement is vague is quite disingenuous if you take the quote out of context. Especially when the author explains what they mean in the next four sentences:
> Programming today is exactly what you’d expect to get by paying an isolated subculture of nerdy young men to entertain themselves for fifty years. You get a cross between Dungeons & Dragons and Rubik’s Cube, elaborated a thousand-fold. I’m serious: Dungeons & Dragons requires mastery of an encyclopedia of minutiae; Rubik’s Cube is a puzzle requiring abstract mathematical thinking. That is programming in a nutshell. As a bonus you also get a toxic culture of intellectual one-up.
> Programming today is exactly what you’d expect to get by paying an isolated subculture of nerdy young men to entertain themselves for fifty years. You get a cross between Dungeons & Dragons and Rubik’s Cube, elaborated a thousand-fold. I’m serious: Dungeons & Dragons requires mastery of an encyclopedia of minutiae; Rubik’s Cube is a puzzle requiring abstract mathematical thinking. That is programming in a nutshell. As a bonus you also get a toxic culture of intellectual one-up.
I've streamlined all my processes to the point that I can build a reasonably scalable system (including user management, app, ACLs, file management, custom queries, REST API points, websocket integration) in a couple of hours.
It's boring for a developer. I don't understand many of the problems described here (e.g. people complain about the complexity of server management, complexity of web frameworks and web in general). Actually it has become more simple than ever to create an app, a backend and scale the system.
With more servers (I use systems that can be scaled horizontally) thrown at it, good caching and some load balancing, it will work for 99% of businesses. Here [1] is a good description of a service that uses this thinking.
I believe there are many who celebrate complexity. Otherwise I can't understand most codebases - I've seen terrible codebases with big LoC's where I was able to reimplement the whole feature set in a couple of days. I believe many programmers don't want to see that their jobs become increasingly easy to do and the boilerplate can be reduced by 90%.
> We don't dream of having to maintain complex machineries reminding us of Rubik's cubes.
Many people do because their jobs depend on it. If businesses would adopt those fast, clean and scalable engineering techniques, 70% of the work force is no longer needed. It's basically the principal-agent problem [2] in action.
[1]: https://medium.com/unboxd/how-i-built-an-app-with-500-000-us...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
edit: in terms of "No Silver Bullet" - I think if we decrease accidental complexity (using good techniques and automated and tested systems) to a record low, we won't need as many people to manage the essential complexity.
In my experience the problem of complexity is another one: big enterprise makes a lot of money using their terrible code. They will keep throwing money at it to avoid major rewrites. Programmers will complain about unnecessary complexity, but complexity is not what's important for the bottom line most of time. The system just works and prints money, so there's no need to correct (until it explodes in complexity, but a major rewrite is also a risky decision for managers and can result in huge investment losses).
It's boring for a developer. I don't understand many of the problems described here (e.g. people complain about the complexity of server management, complexity of web frameworks and web in general). Actually it has become more simple than ever to create an app, a backend and scale the system.
With more servers (I use systems that can be scaled horizontally) thrown at it, good caching and some load balancing, it will work for 99% of businesses. Here [1] is a good description of a service that uses this thinking.
I believe there are many who celebrate complexity. Otherwise I can't understand most codebases - I've seen terrible codebases with big LoC's where I was able to reimplement the whole feature set in a couple of days. I believe many programmers don't want to see that their jobs become increasingly easy to do and the boilerplate can be reduced by 90%.
> We don't dream of having to maintain complex machineries reminding us of Rubik's cubes.
Many people do because their jobs depend on it. If businesses would adopt those fast, clean and scalable engineering techniques, 70% of the work force is no longer needed. It's basically the principal-agent problem [2] in action.
[1]: https://medium.com/unboxd/how-i-built-an-app-with-500-000-us...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
edit: in terms of "No Silver Bullet" - I think if we decrease accidental complexity (using good techniques and automated and tested systems) to a record low, we won't need as many people to manage the essential complexity.
In my experience the problem of complexity is another one: big enterprise makes a lot of money using their terrible code. They will keep throwing money at it to avoid major rewrites. Programmers will complain about unnecessary complexity, but complexity is not what's important for the bottom line most of time. The system just works and prints money, so there's no need to correct (until it explodes in complexity, but a major rewrite is also a risky decision for managers and can result in huge investment losses).
When someone points out a painful truth, it's better to take a good look at oneself, be honest about our flaws, and accept their advice, than to just reject it and consider the other person as mean-spirited.
> Many of us programmers spend a lot of energy to keep systems simple
"Many" is not good enough (and makes me think of the cringy and problematic #notallmen thing on twitter). Ask yourself: who introduces the complexity to those systems again?
> Many of us programmers spend a lot of energy to keep systems simple
"Many" is not good enough (and makes me think of the cringy and problematic #notallmen thing on twitter). Ask yourself: who introduces the complexity to those systems again?
trabant00(1)
Hah, I was nodding along with the article and then got to this bit:
> What reason is there to believe we can improve programming technology to be vastly easier and more accessible? To start with, spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are by far the most popular programming tool, used by far more people than “real” programming. Surely it must be possible to carve out other domains like that of spreadsheets without taking on the full complexity of programming.
As someone writing a spreadsheet app with magical programming powers (https://6gu.nz) no wonder the author seemed to be sweet-talking me :-).
And yeah, I think we can do a lot better. Some low-hanging fruit: backslashes in strings, "what is Unicode", "what is a hash function and why do I care?". Etc.
There's a crap-tonne of essential complexity in just about everything we do, but most tasks for which "programming" should be the right answer are not the sorts of things programmers actually do.
Part of the problem is, we have all the best tools because we are the tool makers. There isn't good version control for Excel. Linting is mediocre. And the language itself sucks, because the programmers who work on it don't think spreadsheets are programming, and don't think the people using spreadsheets are programmers.
I do think the conclusions of the article are o ff-base, though. I have no faith in professional societies, and I don't think the answer is "institutions". The answer is business -- bringing programming to the masses is worth trillions. Programming is the biggest force-multiplier that exists. It's what the FAANGs (widely disparate companies in different industries) have in common -- they (as companies) "know how to program".
Maybe businesses are short-sighted, but the value here is so big it just has to happen. Magic of capitalism and all that.
> What reason is there to believe we can improve programming technology to be vastly easier and more accessible? To start with, spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are by far the most popular programming tool, used by far more people than “real” programming. Surely it must be possible to carve out other domains like that of spreadsheets without taking on the full complexity of programming.
As someone writing a spreadsheet app with magical programming powers (https://6gu.nz) no wonder the author seemed to be sweet-talking me :-).
And yeah, I think we can do a lot better. Some low-hanging fruit: backslashes in strings, "what is Unicode", "what is a hash function and why do I care?". Etc.
There's a crap-tonne of essential complexity in just about everything we do, but most tasks for which "programming" should be the right answer are not the sorts of things programmers actually do.
Part of the problem is, we have all the best tools because we are the tool makers. There isn't good version control for Excel. Linting is mediocre. And the language itself sucks, because the programmers who work on it don't think spreadsheets are programming, and don't think the people using spreadsheets are programmers.
I do think the conclusions of the article are o ff-base, though. I have no faith in professional societies, and I don't think the answer is "institutions". The answer is business -- bringing programming to the masses is worth trillions. Programming is the biggest force-multiplier that exists. It's what the FAANGs (widely disparate companies in different industries) have in common -- they (as companies) "know how to program".
Maybe businesses are short-sighted, but the value here is so big it just has to happen. Magic of capitalism and all that.
> There isn't good version control for Excel. Linting is mediocre. And the language itself sucks, because the programmers who work on it don't think spreadsheets are programming, and don't think the people using spreadsheets are programmers.
Since you're writing a spreasheet app, I presume you are familiar with Feliene's work on this topic?
http://www.felienne.com/publications
Also, you probably will find Edwards videos about his own experiments interesting:
https://vimeo.com/jonathoda
Since you're writing a spreasheet app, I presume you are familiar with Feliene's work on this topic?
http://www.felienne.com/publications
Also, you probably will find Edwards videos about his own experiments interesting:
https://vimeo.com/jonathoda
> I presume
I'm not! Thank you!
I've been pretty heads-down writing my thing, but I'll be sure to set aside my evenings to go through both sites exhaustively, and probably try to get in contact with both to ask for feedback.
I'm not! Thank you!
I've been pretty heads-down writing my thing, but I'll be sure to set aside my evenings to go through both sites exhaustively, and probably try to get in contact with both to ask for feedback.
Also check out Flowsheets by Glen Chiacchieri: https://tinyletter.com/Flowsheets/letters/flowsheets-v2-and-...
Programming for spreadsheet like things is something a DBA does for /databases/.
No, they don't look like spreadsheets, but THAT is the industrial strength tool being used by a professional chainsaw juggler.
No, they don't look like spreadsheets, but THAT is the industrial strength tool being used by a professional chainsaw juggler.
AirTable looks kinda like a spreadsheet, and it's a MS Access clone at heart. Not terribly programmable, though it does look pretty usable.
I think "traditional" databases will fail to reach a general audience (or rather, much expand the definition of "technical audience") because SQL is not really easier than Python etc. Maybe the problem is environments and not languages, though.
Personally I think the relational model is just a little too limited. It's possible to build abstractions in SQL (views, temporary tables, `WITH` etc) but it's hard. And repetitive.
Basically I think functions and variables are great little building blocks, so I'm pushing them. And then, having not backed myself into a corner with by having chosen a limited computational model, I'll make relational stuff easy too :-).
I think "traditional" databases will fail to reach a general audience (or rather, much expand the definition of "technical audience") because SQL is not really easier than Python etc. Maybe the problem is environments and not languages, though.
Personally I think the relational model is just a little too limited. It's possible to build abstractions in SQL (views, temporary tables, `WITH` etc) but it's hard. And repetitive.
Basically I think functions and variables are great little building blocks, so I'm pushing them. And then, having not backed myself into a corner with by having chosen a limited computational model, I'll make relational stuff easy too :-).
I wonder what you would get if you crossbred Postgres and Haskell, for example.
Basically adding indexed tables to the Haskell data model, maybe? Some hybrid of relational tables and algebraic data types?
Sometimes even when writing compilers I’ve had a feeling that relational queries and update would be really nice.
There seem to be four main data paradigms: (1) objects with pointers, (2) algebraic data types, (3) relational tables, and (4) Prolog-style clauses.
Some Haskell programs seem to partially reimplement 1, 3, or 4 using 2...
Basically adding indexed tables to the Haskell data model, maybe? Some hybrid of relational tables and algebraic data types?
Sometimes even when writing compilers I’ve had a feeling that relational queries and update would be really nice.
There seem to be four main data paradigms: (1) objects with pointers, (2) algebraic data types, (3) relational tables, and (4) Prolog-style clauses.
Some Haskell programs seem to partially reimplement 1, 3, or 4 using 2...
> backslashes in strings
There's a simple solution to that: use «balanced quotes»
There's a simple solution to that: use «balanced quotes»
Does that help if those characters appear in the string?
My bet is on editors that let you "type your string into this text box".
My bet is on editors that let you "type your string into this text box".
> Does that help if those characters appear in the string?
Yes, that's the whole point.
«With balanced quotes you can have «embedded strings» without escapes»
The only time that doesn't work is if you want to embed a quote character as a character rather than as a string delimiter. But that is extremely rare.
There are also “different styles” of balanced quotes to choose from, so you can embed a quote character of one style inside a string delimited by a different style.
There will always be perverse situations where a backslash is needed. But you can make them much less common with balanced quotes.
Yes, that's the whole point.
«With balanced quotes you can have «embedded strings» without escapes»
The only time that doesn't work is if you want to embed a quote character as a character rather than as a string delimiter. But that is extremely rare.
There are also “different styles” of balanced quotes to choose from, so you can embed a quote character of one style inside a string delimited by a different style.
There will always be perverse situations where a backslash is needed. But you can make them much less common with balanced quotes.
PostgreSQL allows dollar quoted strings. $whoohoo$this is a string $whoohoo$. A really good way to include strings in strings as the tag can be almost anything you want. I think it is more flexible than heredoc and friends.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-syntax-lexica...
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/sql-syntax-lexica...
I agree, but even there you can have problems if you want a string containing a newline or tab character!
Programming for beginners is just as accessible as it has ever been, there are good languages (some specifically for beginners: Logo, and game making languages and so on) and good courses.
Where do I think programming has stalled is in the business environment. There, as the article correctly points out, it's much harder to automate your job unless you work in an IT department.
Most business end-users do their work in Microsoft Office, and this is one area where I think the tools have stalled. Visual Basic and its object models are a painful hurdle for a smart non-programmer who is trying to get things done efficiently, or who wants to learn programming for its own sake.
There have been some attempts to wire up Excel with Python, but until Microsoft decides to bundle an easy tool with every user's MS Office, programming is going to remain an arcane art.
Where do I think programming has stalled is in the business environment. There, as the article correctly points out, it's much harder to automate your job unless you work in an IT department.
Most business end-users do their work in Microsoft Office, and this is one area where I think the tools have stalled. Visual Basic and its object models are a painful hurdle for a smart non-programmer who is trying to get things done efficiently, or who wants to learn programming for its own sake.
There have been some attempts to wire up Excel with Python, but until Microsoft decides to bundle an easy tool with every user's MS Office, programming is going to remain an arcane art.
>Where do I think programming has stalled is in the business environment. There, as the article correctly points out, it's much harder to automate your job unless you work in an IT department.
Depends on your business. Ecommerce can be automated without needing to code. Many use a central product repository (e.g. Amazon), and build their web frontend (CMSs, shop engines, landing page & app builders) around that, interfacing with it through easy installable plugins and other automation tools. They're already "coding", without code, but "business components".
To have successful funnels, they also need to know UX basics that they can reproduce with those tools, or pick tools with those basics already baked in. They're basically full stack developers who don't code.
The downside to that approach is that you're totally dependent on all those other businesses. But many who start out this way, employ devs as they grow, or start with programming themselves, and transition to their own infrastructure.
Depends on your business. Ecommerce can be automated without needing to code. Many use a central product repository (e.g. Amazon), and build their web frontend (CMSs, shop engines, landing page & app builders) around that, interfacing with it through easy installable plugins and other automation tools. They're already "coding", without code, but "business components".
To have successful funnels, they also need to know UX basics that they can reproduce with those tools, or pick tools with those basics already baked in. They're basically full stack developers who don't code.
The downside to that approach is that you're totally dependent on all those other businesses. But many who start out this way, employ devs as they grow, or start with programming themselves, and transition to their own infrastructure.
MS recently added support for JS in Excel: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/office/blogs/azure-mac...
I'd suggest that the perfect tool here is Zeppelin (notebooks), basically a centralised multi-user sandbox with built-in versioning and scheduling. Deployment of a json notebook to different environments can be handled easily while security can be done at the data layer (ie. SFtp, file access, database, API level).
"Just" use an automating tool: AutoIT if you're ready to do coding or Sikuli if you like their picture based system.
I disagree. The world we have today couldn't be built on simple tools like Spreadsheets and Visual Basic. The amount of complexity in programming is necessary, and the outcome has been tremendous and miraculous if you think about it.
And we don't want to build a future where the masses should be programming! You want my mother to be programming? My sister? Why? I work as a software engineer and most of the time programming is the last thing I want to do when I get home!
Sure it can be overwhelming at times with all the new technologies coming out, but in the future technologies are going to be completely different, with AI and VR becoming more widespread, programming is going to have to change again. And good, because that is what will allow us to build the future!
And we don't want to build a future where the masses should be programming! You want my mother to be programming? My sister? Why? I work as a software engineer and most of the time programming is the last thing I want to do when I get home!
Sure it can be overwhelming at times with all the new technologies coming out, but in the future technologies are going to be completely different, with AI and VR becoming more widespread, programming is going to have to change again. And good, because that is what will allow us to build the future!
In my utopian world, I would like to edit the source code of my microwave so that it stops its annoying bips as soon as I open its door. I would love to remove the stupid nag screen that appears each time I start my nissan leaf.
I am not an electrician, but I can fix basic electric issues. Sometimes, I can fix broken furniture. I am a programmer and I can fix almost nothing.
When we can program, we are in control. I want to be in control of the objects I own, or at least to know that it is possible if I really want it. When I see all what already possible in the 90s with so simple computers, I do not think that the complexity is necessary.
I am not an electrician, but I can fix basic electric issues. Sometimes, I can fix broken furniture. I am a programmer and I can fix almost nothing.
When we can program, we are in control. I want to be in control of the objects I own, or at least to know that it is possible if I really want it. When I see all what already possible in the 90s with so simple computers, I do not think that the complexity is necessary.
Sometimes you can... We did fix a few issues with a washing machine controller once.
But that took a lot of work on an undocumented software in machine code in 8051 and had the best tools.
The issue is that is not easily traceable from machine code representation. Even electronics are easier.
But that took a lot of work on an undocumented software in machine code in 8051 and had the best tools.
The issue is that is not easily traceable from machine code representation. Even electronics are easier.
> You want my mother to be programming? My sister? Why?
Um.... yes? I think a better question is why not? Do you also not want your mother and sister to write or do math even if they are not authors or mathematicians?
Um.... yes? I think a better question is why not? Do you also not want your mother and sister to write or do math even if they are not authors or mathematicians?
> And we don't want to build a future where the masses should be programming! You want my mother to be programming? My sister? Why? I work as a software engineer and most of the time programming is the last thing I want to do when I get home!
I think you may be part of the problem. Why gatekeep your loved ones if it's something they want to do? That implies crass arrogance at best, cruelty at worst.
I think you may be part of the problem. Why gatekeep your loved ones if it's something they want to do? That implies crass arrogance at best, cruelty at worst.
Yo, I have to say something about the sexism in the parent comment for this thread. Specifically:
And yes, of course we'd like your mother and sister to program, in the same way we want everyone to be able to read and write or drive a car. Programming is a wonderful tool that can do so much in many different contexts, and limiting that power to an elite few is a tragic loss of potential.
> You want my mother to be programming? My sister?
And yes, of course we'd like your mother and sister to program, in the same way we want everyone to be able to read and write or drive a car. Programming is a wonderful tool that can do so much in many different contexts, and limiting that power to an elite few is a tragic loss of potential.
Let's be ageist instead, since that is apparently more acceptable. /s
> you want my granddad to do programming?
> you want my granddad to do programming?
You can skirt being prejudiced toward a specific group by just using the general case of someone inexperienced with programming.
> There is something unique about software that exacerbates these problems. Unlike every other technology, software doesn’t wear out. The traditional cycle of replacement and renewal is halted; there is no evolution.
I do understand what he's saying here, but saying that software has no evolution is just wrong. Like yes we still have C code kicking around everywhere but we also have new technologies languages (rust, go, etc etc), new philosophies on how to write code (TDD?), and new tools (jupyter notebook for interactive data munging for example).
Furthermore how many people have been through a rewrite? developers (try) to replace and renew all the time, although yes this is difficult.
also:
> Unfortunately application programming got trampled in the internet gold rush
It seems to me like application programming is alive and well, although admittedly I am younger and am probably considered an application programmer myself (I.E. I don't develop software as a profession, but I write code all the time to help with my work).
I do understand what he's saying here, but saying that software has no evolution is just wrong. Like yes we still have C code kicking around everywhere but we also have new technologies languages (rust, go, etc etc), new philosophies on how to write code (TDD?), and new tools (jupyter notebook for interactive data munging for example).
Furthermore how many people have been through a rewrite? developers (try) to replace and renew all the time, although yes this is difficult.
also:
> Unfortunately application programming got trampled in the internet gold rush
It seems to me like application programming is alive and well, although admittedly I am younger and am probably considered an application programmer myself (I.E. I don't develop software as a profession, but I write code all the time to help with my work).
I believe that software is not a professional practise but a new form of literacy (in fact the book I am writing is all about this (Real Soon Now, thanks for asking))
And when you see software as literacy a lot of the stuff he moans about simply goes away.
Yes it is seen as exclusive and a priesthood - imagine what illiterate serfs thought of those who could write. It took years of practise.
No it's not a good idea to make programming more accessible. We don't have easy literature, we don't think someone who reads and writes solely with fridge magnets (#) has mastered the language. It is a good idea to invest more in education and that is being done reasonably well, but as in all things more is needed.
Yes the results can be a car crash at times - my favourite analogy for this is our management structures.
Would we ever take a literate organisation like the Washington Post or Harper Collins and put a layer of senior management in place who were totally illiterate from birth? If we did do we think they would make sensible decisions, empower those organisations? No.
Yes there is a lot of shiny new thing, going on. But that's because there are a lot of people doing software - and many of them select for being good at marketing too. The real big software projects tend to select for conservatism married to pragmatism- look at Linus on a mailing list or the PEP process, or Debian.
So yeah software needs to sort it self out - and professional bodies will start to solidify (personally I feel a lawyer like body, concerned with managing the course of OSS code used in government is the most beneficial), and until then don't try and fix the world or boil the ocean - just focus on making your coding practises as good as possible, even if your boss is making crazy calls.
(#) Wanted: Better analogys - can you write pithy phrases that sizzle like ice cream on a griddle? Contact the author in complete confidence today.
And when you see software as literacy a lot of the stuff he moans about simply goes away.
Yes it is seen as exclusive and a priesthood - imagine what illiterate serfs thought of those who could write. It took years of practise.
No it's not a good idea to make programming more accessible. We don't have easy literature, we don't think someone who reads and writes solely with fridge magnets (#) has mastered the language. It is a good idea to invest more in education and that is being done reasonably well, but as in all things more is needed.
Yes the results can be a car crash at times - my favourite analogy for this is our management structures.
Would we ever take a literate organisation like the Washington Post or Harper Collins and put a layer of senior management in place who were totally illiterate from birth? If we did do we think they would make sensible decisions, empower those organisations? No.
Yes there is a lot of shiny new thing, going on. But that's because there are a lot of people doing software - and many of them select for being good at marketing too. The real big software projects tend to select for conservatism married to pragmatism- look at Linus on a mailing list or the PEP process, or Debian.
So yeah software needs to sort it self out - and professional bodies will start to solidify (personally I feel a lawyer like body, concerned with managing the course of OSS code used in government is the most beneficial), and until then don't try and fix the world or boil the ocean - just focus on making your coding practises as good as possible, even if your boss is making crazy calls.
(#) Wanted: Better analogys - can you write pithy phrases that sizzle like ice cream on a griddle? Contact the author in complete confidence today.
> No it's not a good idea to make programming more accessible. We don't have easy literature, we don't think someone who reads and writes solely with fridge magnets (#) has mastered the language.
You're mixing up the content of writing with the methods of writing them. Writing "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is still as poetic when using fridge magnets.
Because of that, you fail to see that modern writing systems were massively improved by making it more accessible than what came before it, and that this has had a major impact on literacy levels as well. We started with Scriptio Continua[0]. We had to invent spaces and punctuation. Originally we just had capital letters. And so on.
And if we look beyond the West (which we should), you will encounter Hangul, which is a phonetic alphabet that points out how arbitrary our letters really are and replaces it with something more systematic and easy to learn[1][2].
Sure, mastering writing is hard. Basic literacy and writing systems do not have to be.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua
[1] How Korea crafted a better alphabet - History of Writing Systems #11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9hzK0K1L4I
[2] Learn to read Korean in 15 minutes, http://www.ryanestrada.com/learntoreadkoreanin15minutes/
You're mixing up the content of writing with the methods of writing them. Writing "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is still as poetic when using fridge magnets.
Because of that, you fail to see that modern writing systems were massively improved by making it more accessible than what came before it, and that this has had a major impact on literacy levels as well. We started with Scriptio Continua[0]. We had to invent spaces and punctuation. Originally we just had capital letters. And so on.
And if we look beyond the West (which we should), you will encounter Hangul, which is a phonetic alphabet that points out how arbitrary our letters really are and replaces it with something more systematic and easy to learn[1][2].
Sure, mastering writing is hard. Basic literacy and writing systems do not have to be.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptio_continua
[1] How Korea crafted a better alphabet - History of Writing Systems #11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9hzK0K1L4I
[2] Learn to read Korean in 15 minutes, http://www.ryanestrada.com/learntoreadkoreanin15minutes/
It's hard to find a suitable analogy (see my advert at end of last post) for almost-literate. I think i would be better saying something like ::
it does not matter if one is born in china or UK or korea - children are given huuuuge amounts of training to become literate. We don't dumb down the writing system, and we don't dumb down the literature written in the system, we spend more on training the kids.
Similarly with programming - we should not look for some uber click and go system that makes it easier - we just have to work harder.
Fridge magnets are just a placeholder for "trying to make reading and writing easier without actually learning to be literate". I mean if someone writes in korean no one suggests they are not literate because it's easier. but if someone can only communicate by drawing, like some ultra-fast pictionary competitor, it's hard to say they are literate.
it does not matter if one is born in china or UK or korea - children are given huuuuge amounts of training to become literate. We don't dumb down the writing system, and we don't dumb down the literature written in the system, we spend more on training the kids.
Similarly with programming - we should not look for some uber click and go system that makes it easier - we just have to work harder.
Fridge magnets are just a placeholder for "trying to make reading and writing easier without actually learning to be literate". I mean if someone writes in korean no one suggests they are not literate because it's easier. but if someone can only communicate by drawing, like some ultra-fast pictionary competitor, it's hard to say they are literate.
> it does not matter if one is born in china or UK or korea - children are given huuuuge amounts of training to become literate. We don't dumb down the writing system, and we don't dumb down the literature written in the system, we spend more on training the kids.
We definitely dumb down literature for kids. In fact, we dumb down literature in a gradient to provide a gentle on-ramp.
For the writing system, that's a bit more complex of a question, but at a minimum we judge their use of it more tolerantly (same with spoken language)—this seems somewhat parallel to using a simplified language or environment in programming.
We definitely dumb down literature for kids. In fact, we dumb down literature in a gradient to provide a gentle on-ramp.
For the writing system, that's a bit more complex of a question, but at a minimum we judge their use of it more tolerantly (same with spoken language)—this seems somewhat parallel to using a simplified language or environment in programming.
Programming does not have a nice alphabet because it has to be unambiguously defined for stupid computers to understand.
There is no such thing as a programming alphabet.
There is no such thing as a programming alphabet.
Do you have trouble with metaphor, perhaps?
Because "alphabet" happens to be the fundamental writing system for human languages and therefore crucial to enabling literacy. I am simply using it as an analogy for us needing better programming environments to enable better programming literacy.
Because "alphabet" happens to be the fundamental writing system for human languages and therefore crucial to enabling literacy. I am simply using it as an analogy for us needing better programming environments to enable better programming literacy.
How would that better environment look?
So far, we had fails like Squeak and relatively low succeesses like Jupyter and Delphi.
The root of the problem is that humans communicate in extremely ambiguous and convoluted ways which makes programming quite atypical.
So far, we had fails like Squeak and relatively low succeesses like Jupyter and Delphi.
The root of the problem is that humans communicate in extremely ambiguous and convoluted ways which makes programming quite atypical.
> How would that better environment look?
Come on, what kind of question is that? If I knew how to improve it I wouldn't be chatting here with you, I would be doing something about it.
Also, you should probably watch Bret Victor's videos, especially "The Future of Programming", if only to realize that we have been improving the programming environment since the days of punch cards, and are still in the process of doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pTEmbeENF4
Come on, what kind of question is that? If I knew how to improve it I wouldn't be chatting here with you, I would be doing something about it.
Also, you should probably watch Bret Victor's videos, especially "The Future of Programming", if only to realize that we have been improving the programming environment since the days of punch cards, and are still in the process of doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pTEmbeENF4
Following your metaphor, we're at a point equivalent to people needing to call a scribe to write their tweets and Facebook posts for them.
In programming, there's no tool that allow non-priests to automate repetitive tasks over data sets (though there are some simple trigger-based programmable actions, like Automator or ITTT).
The closest thing allowing end-users to handle repetitive data manipulation is the Spreadsheet, but it requires manual input-output of data, and it isn't easily integrated with actions in the operating system or other applications.
In programming, there's no tool that allow non-priests to automate repetitive tasks over data sets (though there are some simple trigger-based programmable actions, like Automator or ITTT).
The closest thing allowing end-users to handle repetitive data manipulation is the Spreadsheet, but it requires manual input-output of data, and it isn't easily integrated with actions in the operating system or other applications.
We are at a point where people need scribes to download their data and process it. Software is not writing - it's software and it needs an ecosystem around it. It's why it is just wrong that phones are locked down and you cannot get root or a command line.
Reading and Writing we have sorted. We can write on Facebook ok. what we cannot do is arrange our data so it can be iterated over by our script / agents.
Reading and Writing we have sorted. We can write on Facebook ok. what we cannot do is arrange our data so it can be iterated over by our script / agents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_...
Literature is accessible and as a society we value the importance of ensuring that everybody has access to the power it provides. You can either believe that programming is for the elite /or/ that it is like literature.
Literature is accessible and as a society we value the importance of ensuring that everybody has access to the power it provides. You can either believe that programming is for the elite /or/ that it is like literature.
programming should be for everyone. The UK has gone from IT skills for kids ("using Word and excel") to actual coding classes - it's a long way from good, and we need to see "coding"'alongside maths and geography. Sooner rather than later.
no it's it for the elite. see me for examples.
no it's it for the elite. see me for examples.
I was quite pleased with your analogy! But perhaps I misunderstood. I was reading the subtext as a very clever dig at the "hashtag generation" by likening their preferred method of communication (140 character thought bubbles, txt-ing, snapchat etc.) to something as banal as fridge magnets.
I am
not clever enough for deep clever digs. I just do me. :-)
After reading the article I don't get the author's problem or the proposed fix.
An ironic answer would be, yes that’s his point.
I think the problem is: Programming is designed for and by a small group of programmers who enjoy making it difficult.
The solution is to create industrial societies / institutions / guilds etc. who can encourage a transition away towards simpler and more accessible programming approaches.
I think the problem is: Programming is designed for and by a small group of programmers who enjoy making it difficult.
The solution is to create industrial societies / institutions / guilds etc. who can encourage a transition away towards simpler and more accessible programming approaches.
Please describe some of those "more accessible" approaches and I'll probably tell you that they are already here and/or have already failed.
Otherwise the idea is completely not constructive.
Otherwise the idea is completely not constructive.
I'd say your comment is not constructive: you're asking me to name all the solutions, otherwise my observation has no merit?
I'll expand a little. Let's take a single example: developing a single page web application.
To know how to do that, I need to learn HTML, CSS, JS Frameworks, web pack or whatever. Linters, preprocessors, package management ....
Contrast that to building flash app where a designer could use a GUI to produce a beautiful interactive app in no time at all.
Yep, we all hated Flash, but in terms of accessibility to creators, it was beautiful compared to the mess we've made.
A little off-topic but good for perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKXe3HUG2l4
I'll expand a little. Let's take a single example: developing a single page web application.
To know how to do that, I need to learn HTML, CSS, JS Frameworks, web pack or whatever. Linters, preprocessors, package management ....
Contrast that to building flash app where a designer could use a GUI to produce a beautiful interactive app in no time at all.
Yep, we all hated Flash, but in terms of accessibility to creators, it was beautiful compared to the mess we've made.
A little off-topic but good for perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKXe3HUG2l4
Aren't you then asking for a WYSIWYG editor or a CMS that includes something like that? Many of those exist and are suitable for a lot of web development. You step into the lower level for customization that is difficult or just flat out not implemented in the higher level tooling.
Also, pretty much anything Bret Victor has done.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pTEmbeENF4&t=11s
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pTEmbeENF4&t=11s
"Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler"
Programming is always a tradeoff between ability and knowledge of the programmer, time he can invest, performance the product must deliver and the unpredictable future of the product. Nothing can be perfect because nothing is perfect.
Programming is always a tradeoff between ability and knowledge of the programmer, time he can invest, performance the product must deliver and the unpredictable future of the product. Nothing can be perfect because nothing is perfect.
Enterprises, with the best of intentions, routinely opt for what appear on-paper to be lowest-cost developers which end-up being the most expensive option when factoring in the resulting delays, faultiness and complexity of what is built.
Generally speaking, complexity of a software system is inversely proportional to the collective skill and experience the development team.
If I want quality products or services, in any field, I shouldn't expect to get it from the lowest-cost option.
Generally speaking, complexity of a software system is inversely proportional to the collective skill and experience the development team.
If I want quality products or services, in any field, I shouldn't expect to get it from the lowest-cost option.
[deleted]
nicodjimenez(1)
"When do we start throwing obsolete things away?"
We started already: work is afoot to throw away C, C++ and JavaScript, the main culprits. Rust is a good stab at all three.
We started already: work is afoot to throw away C, C++ and JavaScript, the main culprits. Rust is a good stab at all three.
So many failed efforts to make programming vastly easier and more accessible have started with almost this exact line.
I think it's possible that there is a seductive trap there. We see spreadsheets and we think, “programming that doesn't have the downsides we associate with spreadsheets could be just as accessible”. But maybe the problems are intimately tied to what makes it accessible, and wheb you try to make programming that accessible you either fail or end up with something that doesn't offer any advantage over the spreadsheets we have.
> Unfortunately application programming got trampled in the internet gold rush.
No, it didn't. Oh, sure, it's not getting chased around by venture capital, but there's plenty of it going on.
> As a result the internet age has seen an exponential increase in the complexity of programming, as well as its exclusivity.
It really hasn't; we may often be solving far more complex problems, but we do it with languages, frameworks, and platforms that allow casual programmers to do so more easily than at any time in the past. Programming is “more exclusive” only in that:
(1) in working environments, IT policies restrict programming (other than spreadsheets) to the high priesthood more completely than ever before, and
(2) lots of simple problems that would be solved by casual programming in the past now have end-user tools that allow them to be solved without anything we recognize as programming.