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

Computing is too easy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Computing is too easy

#31

Post by sthreet »

Gracana wrote: post #25
jimmaswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I need a search tool to find my installed programs and settings. as if simply typing the name of or keywords for what you want to find into a search bar isn't fluid and inuitive?

Assuming that you know the name of your volume manager is "gigolo" and that your remote desktop client is "remmina," etc. If you're lucky the program might have a reasonable name, but still your OS decides the most likely thing you're looking for is ancient manuscripts... http://i.imgur.com/0ePB9sT.png

For some reason, when I search "mount and blade"; dracula.txt and equator.txt show up. For some reason processing comes with several books from project gutenberg by default, and they show up when I look up some programs.

Re: Computing is too easy

#32

Post by sthreet »

prof_hobart wrote: post #18
300bps wrote: post #12

I agree with the article. The differences between 10 year old me on my Commodore 64 and my currently 10 year old son on his Windows 7 computer are astronomical. When I turned my 64 on it was "READY" for me to make it do something. I spent days typing in BASIC and 6502 Assembly source code into it just to play a game. My son has a seemingly infinite supply of videos on YouTube to entertain him. Near infinite supply of…

There are many more distractions these days, but I'm not sure that it's as clear cut as you suggest. It's really not that hard to get kids into some form of coding today. I've run a Scratch[1] club for 8-10 year olds at my daughter's school and every single one of the kids there loved it. By the end of the first hour, they were all producing some form of animation that they could control and all were desperate to com…

In my personal opinion everyone should learn the basics of programming for the same reason everyone claims that everyone needs four years of English classes and science classes and history classes, because it helps you look at the world in a different way. In addition, I personally have found that if I try to make a program to do math for me, I understand the math way better.

So thank you for teaching some people, because learning is fairly hard, though if you have a good teacher it doesn't seem like it would be as hard to me.

What is Spectrums though?

Re: Computing is too easy

#33

Post by sthreet »

baldfat wrote: post #17
300bps wrote: post #12

I agree with the article. The differences between 10 year old me on my Commodore 64 and my currently 10 year old son on his Windows 7 computer are astronomical. When I turned my 64 on it was "READY" for me to make it do something. I spent days typing in BASIC and 6502 Assembly source code into it just to play a game. My son has a seemingly infinite supply of videos on YouTube to entertain him. Near infinite supply of…

I also agree. Today we need people who can miss the forest for the trees! I can't believe the lack of basic computer skills that people have coming into the workforce and someone that can use Word is considered a computer person. Even the new IT people only know GUI and Microsoft with no experience with Mac OS or Linux, and no idea about anything but the silo they are working in. I was one of those kids who had to pr…

Time to complain about my school. Our "computer" classes consisted of learning to: type, format word, type in a spreadsheet, format powerpoint (in a way that I think powerpoint is unnecessary for), one week total of messing around in garage band, one week of typing out the exact lines of html, copying instructions for dreamweaver.

EDIT: And then we do 'job' stuff in that class. Including making resumes that include our ability to use basic microsoft/adobe programs. I could have learned to do that without a manual or internet before the class. I can learn way more with internet just messing around in photoshop/gimp every once in a while.

Re: Computing is too easy

#34

Post by 6d0debc071 »

Computing doesn't lead well, in its current form, to the development of coevolutionary mastery. That's the thing, I suspect. For example: Your text editor, with the exception of emacs et al, probably isn't particularly programmable in a form that the average user is likely to discover. There's probably not a way to right click on a button and see what function it's calling, or to right click on a transformed bit of text and see what's been done to it.

The program itself isn't built for that. And the economic interest in not building it for that is obvious - if you let users have access to the full power of the machine, even worse to share their modifications, what do they need you for any more? How are you going to convince people to buy version 15 when they've got version 14 set up the way they want it?

Your options have become increasingly strongly contrasted: Become a programmer or live in user-land. As if a programmer isn't just a more knowledgeable class of user and as if that's not a spectrum. It's nothing special about typing white text into a black screen. Even if we still lived in command line land, I don't think that we'd be better off. I don't feel like it has anything to do with how hard the computer is to use - at least not at a surface level. It seems to me more to do with how programmable your programs are and how easily you can start doing useful things with that power.

Re: Computing is too easy

#35

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

PakG1 wrote: post #22
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses if you think OSes were better twenty years ago.

OSes were better twenty years ago because they were more predictable and stable because they couldn't do as much, especially if there was no multithreading. Limitations ensured stability and reliable performance. Today, it's too easy to overload your system. Except now I just realized that 20 years ago was Windows 95. Dang, I'm getting old. :(

They were neither more predictable nor more stable. Twenty years ago, if an application crashed, so did the entire OS. Twenty years ago, applications and the OS were very tightly coupled and they would both deliberately and unintentionally trample on eachother, often with disastrous consequences.

Re: Computing is too easy

#36

Post by scoggs »

klez wrote: post #28
300bps wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is solid, but your experience with Scratch is different than mine. My 10 year old son had very little interest in Scratch. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for this but I think it is related to: 1) It was hard to distribute his creations 2) Lack of natural aptitude / ability 3) Too easy to consume without producing We had a little more success with Construct 2. The main difference being that the games c…

May I suggest that you're starting from the premise that your kid is willing/able to learn programming and that programming is for everyone? As your parent suggested, not everyone who had computers back than had or felt the need to program them.

Right. I think the next step would be to try and find a programming exercise that his son could make his own. Something that would self motivate him to solve a problem. I think this is one of the hardest parts of diving into any high level thinking skill or hobby: finding the motivation to take the first step on a years long journey.

Re: Computing is too easy

#37

Post by tormeh »

PakG1 wrote: post #22
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses if you think OSes were better twenty years ago.

OSes were better twenty years ago because they were more predictable and stable because they couldn't do as much, especially if there was no multithreading. Limitations ensured stability and reliable performance. Today, it's too easy to overload your system. Except now I just realized that 20 years ago was Windows 95. Dang, I'm getting old. :(

Windows 95 sucked so bad. Not missing multiple bluescreens a day.

Re: Computing is too easy

#38

Post by shiggerino »

jeremysmyth wrote: post #23
philbarr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is: there's too many manuals. We don't have time to read them all. In fact, I think one of the skills you learn as you gain experience in software development is choosing your moments. When you can just google it, and when you need to get a cup of coffee and RTFM.

...which suggests that computing is not too easy at all, as per grandparent comment. See also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm... : During my first Microsoft internship, I wrote string libraries to run on the Macintosh... Everything I did was right from K&R -- one thin book about the C programming language. Today, to work on CityDesk, I need to know Visual Basic, COM, ATL, C++, InnoSetup,…

This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation.

This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFCNs, It was a huge leap from HyperCard to the Macintosh Toolbox, not just in difficulty, but also because of the tools and documentation simply didn't exist on most people's Macintoshes, and was very expensive to buy.

Re: Computing is too easy

#39

Post by EliRivers »

dagw wrote: post #29
EliRivers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old cars were more tinkerable and less reliable. Reliability is a curve; a function of how much maintenance is spent on it. No question at all that a modern car with zero maintenance will be more reliable than an old car was with zero maintenance. But with a surprisingly small amount of maintenance, an old can can be more reliable than a modern car with the same amount of maintenance. Sure, it'll take a while before…

I think you are looking at a strong case of survivorship bias. The sample of 30 year old cars that still work represent some of the best made and most reliable cars made 30 years ago. Most of the unreliable and badly made cars from 30 years ago have died and been turned to scrap.

What proportion of modern cars will still be running in 30 years? I suspect it will be less than the proportion of 30 year-old cars that are running now. Some modern cars, I swear, almost feel like disposable items.

Re: Computing is too easy

#40

Post by shiggerino »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #21

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, as a developer, it frustrates the hell out of me when people don't have the slightest idea how computers work on the level of the "just write a program that writes programs" point from the article. On the other hand, I don't know how a car works in any sort of detail, and I'm sure mechanics feel the same about me. I (like to) think the difference is that I have some idea how to reason…

Indeed, the car/mechanic analogy is quite flawed. The driver is the user of the car, the mechanic isn't. Whereas the developer is also a user of the computer in the most fundamental ways. People who don't know how to use computers are merely along for the ride. Someone without a driver's license might have a tremendous benefit from a car. A lot of the time they even have a say in deciding where to go (especially if they pay), but ultimately it's the person behind the wheel that's calling the shots.

And for people who spend their whole working life riding around in cars (as so many do with computers) it's well worth the trouble and effort to get a driver's license and get that extra bit of autonomy. The same should be true of computing.

Post reply on HN