I also wish C++ had a large Standard library. Including , just works, you don't even have to think about it. Now imagine doing the same for or .
They have that. It's called Java.
[deleted]
Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
11–20 of 25 posts
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#12Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#13"It just feels like there's so much territory out there that's beyond the bounds of ASCII text that's just line after line, roughly 80 characters wide, mostly 7-bit ASCII, something that you could type in on a teletype. That's still where programming basically is these days, and it's proven to be a very hard thing to get anything beyond that." Few things in programming are as stupefying and obvious as to why we all e…
7000 years later and we're still communicating with glorified cuneiform. Maybe the reason we're using text for programming is because text is a really, really, good way of communicating abstract thought?
I think it's great for people to experiment with different ways of expressing programs. But I don't think the fact that programming is mostly text-based is necessarily a cause for disappointment, and my guess is that any future form of programming will look more like augmented or improved text, rather than something completely different to today's programming.
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#14"It just feels like there's so much territory out there that's beyond the bounds of ASCII text that's just line after line, roughly 80 characters wide, mostly 7-bit ASCII, something that you could type in on a teletype. That's still where programming basically is these days, and it's proven to be a very hard thing to get anything beyond that." Few things in programming are as stupefying and obvious as to why we all e…
But there is no better alternative. If there were, maybe we wouldn't use language to talk and give instructions to each other either.
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great news, The Future is here already! These reliable methods for telling computers what to compute are known as Programming Languages.
The closest paradigm to what I was trying to imply are more general purpose declarative languages. Something like sql or rich logic libraries that let the developer describe the desired result rather than the 'how.' Now advance this by 100 years, and I would hope anyone can program arbitrarily complex things by using graphical/natural-language tools to specify constraints, and then the 'program' arbitrarily generates…
So the future is Prolog?
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#16"It just feels like there's so much territory out there that's beyond the bounds of ASCII text that's just line after line, roughly 80 characters wide, mostly 7-bit ASCII, something that you could type in on a teletype. That's still where programming basically is these days, and it's proven to be a very hard thing to get anything beyond that." Few things in programming are as stupefying and obvious as to why we all e…
Not many other programmers are looking, though: most are happy with C, C++, and Java.
I'm looking, however, and I think I'm on the right track. I'll need time. I'll believe I've succeeded when Lisp is no longer my favourite language.
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
The closest paradigm to what I was trying to imply are more general purpose declarative languages. Something like sql or rich logic libraries that let the developer describe the desired result rather than the 'how.' Now advance this by 100 years, and I would hope anyone can program arbitrarily complex things by using graphical/natural-language tools to specify constraints, and then the 'program' arbitrarily generates…
So the future is Prolog?
It may be from the early 1970s, but compared to the mainstream programming languages of today, it still look pretty futuristic to me.
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#18"It just feels like there's so much territory out there that's beyond the bounds of ASCII text that's just line after line, roughly 80 characters wide, mostly 7-bit ASCII, something that you could type in on a teletype. That's still where programming basically is these days, and it's proven to be a very hard thing to get anything beyond that." Few things in programming are as stupefying and obvious as to why we all e…
The problem is with the input methods. With a standard keyboard and mouse, it's tedious to enter unicode characters or create other graphical-style representations.
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#19"It just feels like there's so much territory out there that's beyond the bounds of ASCII text that's just line after line, roughly 80 characters wide, mostly 7-bit ASCII, something that you could type in on a teletype. That's still where programming basically is these days, and it's proven to be a very hard thing to get anything beyond that." Few things in programming are as stupefying and obvious as to why we all e…
Paradigm shift will occur, when we will deploy neuromechanisms allowing to directly interact with the brain. Pictures are more natural representation for our mind, so we probably will live in some super-unicode environment. No need to stick with ASCII, no need to encode "while" operator with those 5 latin letters, just some fun picture and that's all. Or may be block schemas will live again or modified block schemas.…
How does this work if 2 or more people are working on the same program? I then have to understand what other people's pictures mean, so then not much has changed: you still have to learn the meaning of symbols, but those symbols are pictures rather than words.
In terms of representing structure with pictures, there is a further weakness in that many problems can't be neatly represented in a diagram because they have more than 3 dimensions to them.
I think you basic point still stands though: I'm sure we could be more effective about how we navigate around code and express ourselves to the computer.
Re: Interview with Dennis Ritchie, Bjarne Stroustrup, and James Gosling (2000)
#20"It just feels like there's so much territory out there that's beyond the bounds of ASCII text that's just line after line, roughly 80 characters wide, mostly 7-bit ASCII, something that you could type in on a teletype. That's still where programming basically is these days, and it's proven to be a very hard thing to get anything beyond that." Few things in programming are as stupefying and obvious as to why we all e…
7000 years later and we're still communicating with glorified cuneiform. Maybe the reason we're using text for programming is because text is a really, really, good way of communicating abstract thought? I think it's great for people to experiment with different ways of expressing programs. But I don't think the fact that programming is mostly text-based is necessarily a cause for disappointment, and my guess is that…
The frustration, I think, is the feeling that a very powerful turing machine is being limited by 7000 years of biological and cultural idiosyncrasies.