I thought "makers" all used Python. What's the friction that EYG is supposed to remove?
EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
21–30 of 69 posts
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#22I generally don't think it's a good idea to develop a language for non-developers. It was tried before multiple times and the end goal has not been achieved. Sooner or later one realizes, that professional developers are still necessary, even for languages initially designed for "normies". But such a language is typically not good enough for them, it lacks necessary abstractions, flexibility, performance or something…
Your three examples historically were successful in achieving widespread usage, and in the case of SQL, shows no sign of disappearing.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#23I generally don't think it's a good idea to develop a language for non-developers. It was tried before multiple times and the end goal has not been achieved. Sooner or later one realizes, that professional developers are still necessary, even for languages initially designed for "normies". But such a language is typically not good enough for them, it lacks necessary abstractions, flexibility, performance or something…
Your three examples historically were successful in achieving widespread usage, and in the case of SQL, shows no sign of disappearing.
They are widespread, but not among "normies", but professional programmers. That's what I call a failure, since they were initially designed to be used by non-programmers.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your three examples historically were successful in achieving widespread usage, and in the case of SQL, shows no sign of disappearing.
They are widespread, but not among "normies", but professional programmers. That's what I call a failure, since they were initially designed to be used by non-programmers.
I would love having the capability of just writing json-esque SQL that has the most basic type checks, alas we live in purgatory with weird build systems to validate queries.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#25I generally don't think it's a good idea to develop a language for non-developers. It was tried before multiple times and the end goal has not been achieved. Sooner or later one realizes, that professional developers are still necessary, even for languages initially designed for "normies". But such a language is typically not good enough for them, it lacks necessary abstractions, flexibility, performance or something…
Your three examples historically were successful in achieving widespread usage, and in the case of SQL, shows no sign of disappearing.
SQL is a real programming language with a super high ceiling if you need to write scalable queries.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
from the article > My hypothesis > Developers deal with two broad categories of work. > - Describing the logic of the problem they are solving using language constructs like if, loop, var etc. > - Working with computers to run those problems using constucts like $PATH, /var/tmp and AWS. > There are a lot of humans who can do the first work fine but don’t have the time to master the second category. I call these human…
Didn't we invent the word "devops" specifically for the combination of work of development and ops? How did we get to the point where we now need a word for "development without the ops"?
That's still not what this is about. Take the example in the article: people who don't write code 100% of the time but have to think about mechanical and electrical engineering consideration for most of the time. You don't describe that as DevOps.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#27I generally don't think it's a good idea to develop a language for non-developers. It was tried before multiple times and the end goal has not been achieved. Sooner or later one realizes, that professional developers are still necessary, even for languages initially designed for "normies". But such a language is typically not good enough for them, it lacks necessary abstractions, flexibility, performance or something…
Your three examples historically were successful in achieving widespread usage, and in the case of SQL, shows no sign of disappearing.
I think this is a point I should make more clearly. And there are more examples of programmable environments. Excel being one.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your three examples historically were successful in achieving widespread usage, and in the case of SQL, shows no sign of disappearing.
They are widespread, but not among "normies", but professional programmers. That's what I call a failure, since they were initially designed to be used by non-programmers.
I'm not sure "normies" is the right grouping. I think that is too broad some people are artists and some people just aren't that curious to try. I think a better group to target is "makers" I think that's anyone with enough ambition to at least try and fix a plug or change a lightbulb.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#29EYG's structure editor is amazing, not letting you create syntactically invalid code etc.
Thank you. I have some new editor features I hope to share once the package management is improved.
Re: EYG: A Programming Language for Humans
#30I thought "makers" all used Python. What's the friction that EYG is supposed to remove?
Bringing a sound and totally inferred type system, including of all effects. Is the main dimension. It also aims to improve the friction around managing dependencies.