Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

news.ycombinator.com

161–170 of 235 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#161
post #142

Nokia tried this in 2009. They released the n900 phone which IMO was the best phone ever made. It came with a full version of linux on it, with a hardware keyboard. Their marketing around it was that it was 'the hackers phone', and they started trying to build a community around it by launching competitions and advertising the best hacks and out of the box ideas which could be achieved on the phone. I remember runnin…

I was given one for a University (CS) class around 2010-2011. To me it was so far behind Android/iOS that I didn't want to use it.

Retrospectively, I'd like to have one running a Linux system today (maybe PostmarketOS with SXMO?), but well...

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#162

Early PCs lacked two things that made smartphones a whole new ballgame: a network, and software. When the Altair 8800, IBM PC, Apple II, Commodore PET, and Tandy TRS-80 shipped (1975-1980), there was no way to communicate with other people, nor was there much software (nor was there convenient storage for it — cassette tapes and floppies were severely limiting and a major pain to use). If the machine didn't have a Ba…

In a funny way, the app stores of the 80s were BBS and computer group meetups. People went there and came home with shareware (or cracked) apps on floppies to try on their home PC.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#163
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The industry does not want you programming or creating, the industry wants you to be consuming For this to be true, logically the tools to create smartphone programs would be fiercely protected and only available to the chosen few and smartphone OS developers would never in a million years promote learning how to program on their devices. From my end it looks like the opposite of all of that is happening. I went to…

>For this to be true, logically the tools to create smartphone programs would be fiercely protected and only available to the chosen few In a way, they are. They are gatekept in a way that is transparent to you because you find yourself on the correct side of the gate. Apple's gatekeeping is overt, while Google's is more covert: 1) They require a desktop computer - a powerful one at that. Apple requires a Mac. It wou…

Hello world is literally one line nowadays. Your resource is ridiculously outdated.

> setContent { Text("Hello world!") }

https://developer.android.com/jetpack/compose/tutorial

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#164
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the youth doing this nowadays. But just watching it causes severe physical pain in me. Everything is awkward, and painful slow. In the time you would have written a page of code on a desktop in an IDE you hardly manage to write a few lines of working code on a phone. Alone the fact that you can't use keyboard shortcuts efficiently is more than crippling! Not to mention the extremely tiny screen on a phone.…

It’s neither awkward nor slow, it’s just tooling that sucks (we have to type in a bare textarea, which is designed for text). Add some helpers and keys to the keyboard and it’s done. Like an email field makes your on-screen kbd have @ and . characters, you can add {} and [] and autoindent. Best for thinking is actually walking around, while not being distracted by anything else. Fwiw my best ideas were born in a bath…

> It’s neither awkward nor slow

Compared to mouse and keyboard it is.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#167
Was watching videos about late 90s early naughties PDAs and things like the Psion or the Palm had ways to code directly on the device for the device. That’s quite unusual in this age, you need permission from the platform now to even hope writing any code to run on your own smartphone.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at least on x86 you're still able to install whatever operating system you want, even if only for legacy reasons

New motherboards have safe boot enabled and you can’t disable it in UEFI. So no, you can’t.

not universally true, gigabyte motherboards definitely allow you to disable this

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#169
From just the headline, I expected this question was going to lament the "wasteful" coding practices of mobile apps and pine of the days of hand-tuned, low footprint software. So, I was all set to point out that smartphones with multiple cores, GBs of RAM and storage, high speed networking, and massive screen resolutions are nothing like 80s computers. These things aren't even as limited as computers from the mid-2000s!

But, as others have mentioned in various posts, I think the answer to the question of BASIC REPLs has multiple angles.

First, most early 80s computers did not boot straight to a programming REPL either. As soon as you had some kind of disk operating system you ended up in a shell and would have to invoke a BASIC interpreter or other programming environment if you wanted it. As far as I can tell, the feature threshold was having enough storage to make multiple programs persistently available. That was true across CP/M, MS-DOS, and Apple computers. Then, when they added GUIs, the shell became some kind of GUI menu instead of a CLI. With more storage, you get more built-in apps and less emphasis on a "blank machine" ready to take custom code.

After decades of this growth of storage, a smartphone is really not marketed as a general purpose compute platform. It still has more than vestigial "communications appliance" characteristics and is morphing into "cloud appliance". There is a feedback loop where vendors are marketing an integrated experience that sets the expectation for the next round of products too. And at the mass market volumes they are reaching, economies of scale mean that this approach is targeted towards the largest consumer markets.

It's almost fractal, but the cloud applications themselves are going through the same kind of shift. The commercial pressures are to create ever more integrated experiences for the mass-market user. It is a niche interest to want a general purpose platform where lots of capabilities are available, but the integrated whole is absent and waiting for a new custom program to be entered. Most consumers don't want the device or app that lacks this complete solution, and vendors don't want to provide all the infrastructure and then have some other party come in and claim all the value-add experience that is most visible to the paying customers.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't smartphones encourage programming like early 80s computers?

#170

From just the headline, I expected this question was going to lament the "wasteful" coding practices of mobile apps and pine of the days of hand-tuned, low footprint software. So, I was all set to point out that smartphones with multiple cores, GBs of RAM and storage, high speed networking, and massive screen resolutions are nothing like 80s computers. These things aren't even as limited as computers from the mid-200…

> First, most early 80s computers did not boot straight to a programming REPL either. As soon as you had some kind of disk operating system you ended up in a shell and would have to invoke a BASIC interpreter or other programming environment if you wanted it.

If your system booted to the DOS, which many which had one available did not; to boot the Apple II DOS when it was released, you had to use the BASIC REPL, and even once it booted it didn’t have its own REPL, it hooked into the BASIC interpreter and provided BASIC commands for interacting with the disk, making the BASIC REPL its REPL and the BASIC interpreter its batch programming environment. While the exact details may be different, having the DOS be an under-layer which didn’t have its own shell was common on other systems, too.

Post reply on HN