21–30 of 511 posts
Maybe future programming systems can use an assertive pattern, where software developers only define what the software is supposed to do. And the programming systems generates a program that fulfills all assertions. Then when the software designer finds that the software does something wrong, he can simply add assertions. Its a little like TDD but without coding. For GUI applications it would be cool to define assert…
What we need before all this is a better way of specifying program behavior, both at a high and a low level. In mobile there are multiple tools that you can use to prototype UI behavior. They allow you to specify navigation, transitions, clickable areas, behaviors when clicked, swipe actions, etc. They're this way so that the UI behaviors can be seen before coded (to an extent - not every prototyping tool does everyt…
It's not just a UI prototype; you build a model of the underlying state of the system as you transition from screen to screen.
Eh, unfortunately the one programming breakthrough the world actually needs is one that would drastically change, and perhaps harm, most of the people around here. We need more "Excels." More and better tools that let "regular" people program.
I'm all into PowerApps and all that, but no-code for anything the least bit sizable or complex is a fantasy from citizen developers.
Eh, unfortunately the one programming breakthrough the world actually needs is one that would drastically change, and perhaps harm, most of the people around here. We need more "Excels." More and better tools that let "regular" people program.
...because, although I could argue about those points, it's fundamentally unrelated to the OP, and issue that programming is hard, and, for a very long time, no one has really had any idea how to solve it.
Now, however, AI generated code (like copilot) is, for the first time in a long time, a potential avenue to actually change how software is created at all levels.
I think there's pretty interesting, because it opens up a lot of new opportunities.
Is the future dynamic languages / high level specifications that are AI-transformed into typed verbose languages like C/Rust/whatever and then compiled?
The ancient tools like Rational Rose tried to do this, but the tech was never actually technically good enough. Maybe... we'll see a real change in this space as the sophistication of the models improves... or maybe, like self-driving cars, it's always going to be 'nearly good enough'.
Hard to say.
...but, hot damn. More excels? Please no. Excel already exists. Don't rebuild that stuff again. Build new, different interesting tools please.
My day becomes selecting libraries, integrating them, and testing integration. My business code is < 20% of our entire codebase. And I’m much more productive in 2022 than in 1992.
There’s a lot of complaining and not a lot of suggesting going on in this article so I don’t take it for very much. I feel like the author got a job and realized that it almost exclusively involves writing glue code and tests and looking at text diffs, so how convenient to imagine a world where they didn’t have to do the boring parts of their job.
Eh, unfortunately the one programming breakthrough the world actually needs is one that would drastically change, and perhaps harm, most of the people around here. We need more "Excels." More and better tools that let "regular" people program.
Regular people have their regular jobs to do. They want to use tools, not build them. I'm all into PowerApps and all that, but no-code for anything the least bit sizable or complex is a fantasy from citizen developers.
Maybe future programming systems can use an assertive pattern, where software developers only define what the software is supposed to do. And the programming systems generates a program that fulfills all assertions. Then when the software designer finds that the software does something wrong, he can simply add assertions. Its a little like TDD but without coding. For GUI applications it would be cool to define assert…
Maybe future programming systems can use an assertive pattern, where software developers only define what the software is supposed to do. And the programming systems generates a program that fulfills all assertions. Then when the software designer finds that the software does something wrong, he can simply add assertions. Its a little like TDD but without coding. For GUI applications it would be cool to define assert…
Isn't this just a programming, but harder and worse?
We've invented programming languages to be less ambiguous about what we want done, that's a feature and not a bug. It allows us to avoid the struggle of lawmakers (who are programming in spoken language) and lets us tell the computer exactly and unambiguously what to do.
Natural language does not.
"Bang on the floor" may mean to slam the floor or to have sex on the floor.
There's a programming joke that goes like a programmer's partner says "Go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, buy twelve". The programmer comes back with twelve loaves of bread.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Eh, unfortunately the one programming breakthrough the world actually needs is one that would drastically change, and perhaps harm, most of the people around here. We need more "Excels." More and better tools that let "regular" people program.
Excel programming errors cost business $$$ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/100923538