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

Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#121

Post by TT-392 »

8K832d7tNmiQ wrote: post #101

I've seen lots of journal papers in my field that use labVIEW to write an application that uses a node-based model or data-flow coding, similar to how Blender handles Shader nodes. In general, it helps students to write a quick application and focus to the important part at the cost of limiting the environment to labVIEW.

labview is kinda terrible in my experience, and in the experience of most of the people in my EE class. That is why I find the blender node system so impressive, it is a graphical programming language, but it is actually really nice. (also, blender now has geometry nodes, which are really poweful and fun to play with)

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#122

Post by TheMonarchist »

Jtsummers wrote: post #70
Someone wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has been said that non-programmers used to catch on to APL quite quickly back in the day Thompson and Ritchie also said their secretaries happily wrote troff . Do people get pampered too much today or are we severely underestimating them?

I think we underestimate them, but they also underestimate themselves (I hear a lot of "I can't..." by people who definitely can, once that word is in their head they no longer can but because of the mental block). Also, there was a major difference between what the secretaries would have been using before troff and their experience with troff. In particular, at that time, they were probably using typewriters. A digi…

> Today, people have Word and Google Docs, why do they need troff/Markdown/TeX/LaTeX/Asciidoc/org-mode/etc.?

Because what they write has structure and they don't want to be distracted by the looks.

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#124

Post by timbit42 »

lamontcg wrote: post #113
OJFord wrote: post #40

AppleScript is sort of an attempt at that isn't it? I got there by thinking 'probably not that far off python, but even more pseudocodey, a load of redundant keywords like `for every item in` instead of `for v in`' -- and such constructs probably wouldn't bind variables, you'd repeat yourself referring to `the item` or something. I also think there'd probably be a lot of focus on (high school) mathematical functions…

> So everything would be about identifying pixels on the screen and colouring them, locating the cursor by position, that sort of thing. Logo Bring back the turtle.

Turtle graphics are only one part of Logo, which is a powerful Lisp with a syntax that reduces parentheses.

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#125

Post by timbit42 »

tyingq wrote: post #61

Early languages might be good examples, since there wasn't really a defined path of programmer. COBOL, for example, has the feel of a smart, but not traditional programmer approach. Grace Hopper was a mathematics PhD.

I'm not sure that feel is due to Grace Hopper. She wasn't on the team that created it but she had indirect influence on it.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#126

Post by timbit42 »

unsigner wrote: post #28
open-source-ux wrote: post #14

One possibility: the non-programmer is more open to designing a language that is more than just text. Programming in plain text (in a monospace font) hasn't changed for decades. It doesn't look like it will change for the foreseeable future either. This isn't because plain text is inherently superior. We're still relying on clumsy, cryptic syntax determined by the limited characters available on a keyboard. The simpl…

Plain text is inherently superior for collaboration (versioning, diffing, merging, blame etc.), maturity of tools (I'm thinking Sublime/vi here, not IDEs), and interoperatbility with other tools (e.g. how easy it is to generate/consume).

Maturity and interoperability of tools isn't a valid excuse. New tools will be written and they will mature.

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#127

Post by timbit42 »

sidpatil wrote: post #88
charcircuit wrote: post #8

Here's a simple one: You write out the requirements of the program in English and it spits out a program that implements it all.

"When someone says 'I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done,' give him a lollipop." —Alan Perlis

These already exist. They're called declarative languages.

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#128

Post by Jtsummers »

TheMonarchist wrote: post #122
Jtsummers wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we underestimate them, but they also underestimate themselves (I hear a lot of "I can't..." by people who definitely can, once that word is in their head they no longer can but because of the mental block). Also, there was a major difference between what the secretaries would have been using before troff and their experience with troff. In particular, at that time, they were probably using typewriters. A digi…

> Today, people have Word and Google Docs, why do they need troff/Markdown/TeX/LaTeX/Asciidoc/org-mode/etc.? Because what they write has structure and they don't want to be distracted by the looks.

Just saw your reply, but I think you're missing my point and I'm not sure if it's willful or not. If not, here it is again: The difference in experience between Word/Docs and the various text-based markup languages is not as significant as the difference that someone would have experienced going from a typewriter to something digital, whether troff or anything else. It is like trying to get someone to go from Excel -> another programming language, versus a handheld calculator and pen and paper to anything on a computer. There are differences, I'm not saying there aren't and you're being obtuse if that's how you're taking it, but the magnitude is far less.

Regarding your "don't want to be distracted", Word has had an outline mode since at least 1995 (first time I used Word). Not sure about Google Docs, but it's a perfectly fine distraction free writing environment. So that's not even a selling point for users of Word.

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#129

Post by TheMonarchist »

Jtsummers wrote: post #128
TheMonarchist wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today, people have Word and Google Docs, why do they need troff/Markdown/TeX/LaTeX/Asciidoc/org-mode/etc.? Because what they write has structure and they don't want to be distracted by the looks.

Just saw your reply, but I think you're missing my point and I'm not sure if it's willful or not. If not, here it is again: The difference in experience between Word/Docs and the various text-based markup languages is not as significant as the difference that someone would have experienced going from a typewriter to something digital, whether troff or anything else. It is like trying to get someone to go from Excel -…

> I think you're missing my point

I just don't object to anything but that one question.

> Word has had an outline mode since at least 1995

I haven't had Word for years so I can't check it out, but if you take WYSIWYG out of a WYSIWYG editor, what is left? Why would I use it instead of other tools you listed? I have used some of them.

Re: Ask HN: How would a programming language look if designed by non-programmer

#130

Post by marianoguerra »

Someone wrote: post #52
j-pb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQL made relational programming possible, when computer were too slow to do declarative programming. The modern aproach would be something more highlevel/declarative like Datalog, but given the context SQL made a good tradeoff in terms of programmer control and declarativity. R is ugly because it encourages users to use it wrong. For loops are slow as a snail, but are what everybody uses and teaches, while the proper…

I think something like QBE ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_by_Example ; about as old as SQL) is the way to let non-programmers write queries.

I'm working on that :)

Instadeq: A Live Programming Environment for End User Data Analysis and Visualization

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTEkYqnGICE Slides: https://marianoguerra.github.io/presentations/2021-live/

Post reply on HN