Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The future is fewer people writing code?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 256 posts

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#221

Post by marklubi »

codingdave wrote: post #218

Some of my coworkers have been using similar concepts to teach K-5 coding in a few school districts for a few years now. And the big, surprising impact has not been about the code, but about the problem solving... I'm getting the stories second-hand, but apparently the concept of debugging problems becomes so ingrained that they "debug" all their efforts. When they make a mistake in math, they debug their process to…

> the concept of debugging problems

I've been seeing this same thing happen with my 7 year old son (I'm a programmer), and I always encourage him to find out why something didn't work out the way he expected it to.

Whether they grow up to become a coder or not, I'll be happy when more people look for the cause of the problem, rather than just simply treating the symptoms.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#222

Post by ridgeguy »

dasil003 wrote: post #179
Jtsummers wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agree with the author. >> No, the hard part of programming is understanding in very specific and rigid details how to accomplish a task. The real benefit of something like Project Bloks is that it actually removes the code; it allows children to begin thinking programmatically, without the obstacle of syntax. And this is a tough distinction to make, because people often use “programming” and “coding” synonymously…

Sure, we agree the code is not the important thing, but that's a very oblique point. Where I disagree is that "removing the code" will help someone gain better understanding. It might help them dip their feet in and get at the core of what's important (hence MIT using scheme for its intro CS class for 30 years). However as soon as someone passes the beginner phase, the difficult thing is expressing the ideas succinct…

I think the author was saying something different, with which I agree.

There's a POV from which code is the details needed to get something done, and the less, the better. In my life, the less visible the code task has become, the more power I've gained. A couple of examples:

When word processors stopped needing to be told stuff like /b at the beginning and end of words I wanted boldfaced, it got better. I found the whole WYSIWYG thing enormously helpful. The portion of time I devoted to typography was released for improving content.

LabView made it possible for me to assemble data acquisition and control systems with drag/drop icons and drawing connections instead of coding a PID module and then a gain module and then a Kalman filter function and ... you get the idea. Less code to write, more stuff done.

By analogy: Today, I turn a dial to make a fire to cook my dinner. I turn a valve to get water. I drive a car to go places. Yes, I've rubbed sticks together, I've winched a bucket up from a well, and I maintained a horse for mobility when I was a kid. I'm pleased and empowered by no longer needing those skills.

In the same way, I look forward to the disappearance of coding as a prerequisite to creation. I'm immensely grateful to the people whose coding is making that happen.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#223

Post by wentoodeep »

imgabe wrote: post #81
nickbauman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a serious gap in the writer's mind about computation and programming. It's like the author is suggesting that "eventually we won't need writing: it will be replace by writing-thinking or picture-writing". It's completely absurd. Specific, complex ideas can only be described and communicated in text. Not pictures. Blueprints, for example, have a pictorial element to them, but their fundamental value is our abi…

Blueprints/schematics are far, far superior at conveying the information they do compared to a written narrative. Given the ease of preparing written text compared to drawing schematics nobody would go to the trouble of doing so if that weren't the case.

Just imagine a compiler that scans your diagram written by hand on a piece of paper, translate it into AST then interpret it or even produce an executable.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#224

Post by jrapdx3 »

imgabe wrote: post #81
nickbauman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a serious gap in the writer's mind about computation and programming. It's like the author is suggesting that "eventually we won't need writing: it will be replace by writing-thinking or picture-writing". It's completely absurd. Specific, complex ideas can only be described and communicated in text. Not pictures. Blueprints, for example, have a pictorial element to them, but their fundamental value is our abi…

Blueprints/schematics are far, far superior at conveying the information they do compared to a written narrative. Given the ease of preparing written text compared to drawing schematics nobody would go to the trouble of doing so if that weren't the case.

An interesting angle on the topic comes from my father who at one time was a project manager and designer in the construction industry. In the days before computers he would painstakingly hand-draw the design that was reproduced as blueprints, that was the role of the "draftsman".

But the drawing wasn't the source of stress, rather it was the project "specification" that he sweated. The issue was the spec was a legal, text-format document detailing the size of beams, type of wire, plumbing, fixtures, etc. He had to assure that beams were sufficient to support structure, electrical wiring was safe and up to code, etc. A mistake could expose the contractor and himself to legal liability if a component failed, so an accurate spec was a task he took seriously.

Of course the subject of program specifications is commonly discussed, though often doesn't have the same significance that my father experienced. I guess in most cases program crashes don't have the same impact that a roof caving in would entail. In situations where crashing can't be tolerated, the spec will mean a whole lot more.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#225

Post by i_are_smart »

brianwawok wrote: post #198
openasocket wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference comes down to syntax vs. semantics. The problem with assembly isn't its syntax (mov eax, ebx is fairly readable), it's that the underlying semantics are too low level. Exploring new abstractions/semantics to use is very useful (local variables, first-class functions, algebraic data types, etc.), but optimizing solely for source program size leads to a language that's great for code golf and not much el…

Not sure. I mean yes you can abuse some languages and fit an entire program on 1 line (see any golf project). But I can generally grok a 100 line scala program in the same time as a 100 line Java program, and the scala program is usually about twice as dense. (So I am groking scala twice as fast).

I generally find this to be true for myself, too. Although I would add the qualifier that I find Java to be an exceptionally wordy language, for lack of a better term. It seems to take a lot of talk to do a little in Java even compared to other object oriented languages.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#226

Post by avindroth »

bdrool wrote: post #97
dasil003 wrote: post #91

Non-programmers make this mistake all the time: thinking that the syntax is the hard part of programming. No, the hard part of programming is understanding in very specific and rigid details how to accomplish a task. What the author doesn't realize is the enormous amount of processing power, shared culture and empathy that goes into human interaction. Even mighty Google doesn't have the compute power or the architect…

> Non-programmers make this mistake all the time: thinking that the syntax is the hard part of programming. Programmers make it all the time too, or at least something very similar. See all those people who are on the endless quest for the "perfect" language, which usually means one which allows for writing the shortest code, sometimes at a very high cognitive cost for very little payoff. No, I really don't want to d…

I am obsessed with programming paradigms, not languages.

Best way to learn a new programming paradigm is by learning a new programming language conducive towards a certain manner of problem-solving.

So yes, I am obsessed with programming languages. But not for the reasons you listed.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#227

Post by optforfon »

ISL wrote: post #37

Are there graphical languages that advocates like? The only graphical language that I've encountered professionally is LabVIEW, and I've yet to see an instance/programming style where it has been superior for anything but quick prototyping. A language that's editable in both flowchart and traditional formats could be very useful, if executed in a way that doesn't cripple the traditional side of things.

I have an artist friend who does everything in Max/MSP. At first I was rather dismissive and thought he should just learn to code properly - but the patching environment makes him able to get results incredibly fast - much much faster than I can do with C++ (even using something like Openframeworks)

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#228

Post by sp527 »

This is a very amusing article because I went in expecting fairly sophisticated arguments about Cloud, PaaS, DevOps, layers of abstraction, higher-level languages/paradigms, etc. Perhaps this was naive, given the domain of origin.

The irony is that the future probably will enable individual programmers to have an even more outsized ability to create value, and fewer programmers will be necessary to accomplish the same set of tasks. Sadly, cogent arguments about meaningful issues aren't exactly TechCrunch's forte.

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#229

Post by thaumasiotes »

khedoros wrote: post #204
autokad wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its much faster to put together a functioning system than it was 10 years ago. For example in ROR, install devise and you already have a login system. I imagine things will keep getting incrementally easier / faster until one day we wont need a 'programmer' to do what we want. google isn't unaware, I'll try not to put words in his mouth, but a google exec said something along the lines that we aren't very far from ne…

> google isn't unaware, I'll try not to put words in his mouth, but a google exec said something along the lines that we aren't very far from needing half of the programmers/ IT people we have today In one way, that's a scary idea (a lot of people will end up looking for work elsewhere). On the other, what programmer wants to do the stuff that can be automated away or done by a non-programmer? Or wants to reinvent th…

> what programmer wants to [...] reinvent the wheel because of NIH syndrome?

Almost all of them?

Re: The future is fewer people writing code?

#230

Post by thaumasiotes »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #150
nickbauman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a serious gap in the writer's mind about computation and programming. It's like the author is suggesting that "eventually we won't need writing: it will be replace by writing-thinking or picture-writing". It's completely absurd. Specific, complex ideas can only be described and communicated in text. Not pictures. Blueprints, for example, have a pictorial element to them, but their fundamental value is our abi…

I don't think we can distinguish text and pictures so easily. Look at Chinese, look at Egytian hieroglyphs. Even when "hierglyphics" is used as as a term of abuse of for programming languages synatax -- it ends up pretty popular. I thoroughly hated LabView when I had to program in it, but it did convince me that a graphical programming language could work -- if only it refrained from doing the cking stupid things tha…

> I don't think we can distinguish text and pictures so easily. Look at Chinese, look at Egytian hieroglyphs.

Based on these two sentences, I'm confident that you don't know the first thing about Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Post reply on HN