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

"My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

ask.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 199 posts

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#131

Post by simplify »

ctdonath wrote: post #57

He is exactly right. As a beginning-programming instructor, my students have little difficulty understanding language syntax and operation - much like the "language lawyers" mentioned. Their recurring problem is not correct syntax, it's internalizing the process of expressing a solution to a problem using that syntax. They have few unto no examples of what a program - a real, functioning, well written program - looks…

How long have you been teaching programming, and how did you get into it? I'm very interesting in teaching beginner programming for a while now, as I'm completely unsatisfied with my "top 10 in CS" university's shallow approach. If you could drop me an email (in my profile), that'd be great.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#132

Post by enjalot »

ctdonath wrote: post #57

He is exactly right. As a beginning-programming instructor, my students have little difficulty understanding language syntax and operation - much like the "language lawyers" mentioned. Their recurring problem is not correct syntax, it's internalizing the process of expressing a solution to a problem using that syntax. They have few unto no examples of what a program - a real, functioning, well written program - looks…

I don't think this is what you are looking for, but when you said poetry it came to mind http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:M1SJtT_...

(the original seems to be down)

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#133

Post by jorgeortiz85 »

klbarry wrote: post #8
larrik wrote: post #3

I think he's right. In college, my CS 2 class was taught by a professor very different than the rest of the teachers there. He wanted all of your programming assignments on paper[1]. Then, you'd get it back with every possible bug marked in your program, and he very rarely missed any[2]. That was the first time in college I thought "I really need to learn how to do that!" I went to a state school, so maybe all you gu…

From what I've heard, professors in prestigious schools aren't any better at teaching. They're hired for their prestige and research ability.

Stanford's CS department hires lecturers (not professors) to teach many undergraduate classes, especially the introductory ones. Lecturers aren't expected to do research, and are hired based on their teaching ability. The ones I had were all incredible teachers.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#134

Post by michaeldhopkins »

VMG wrote: post #44
regularfry wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uniformity in code is bad - it tells you that there's a common concern or pattern which should be factored out. Uniformity in code style is essential, the same way it is for prose.

Is it? In prose you say "first he rushed to the exit door, then he leaped down the stairs, finally he ran to get the train" while in programming it is better to write socket.close(); window.close(); file.close()

Comparing declarative prose in past tense and instructions doesn't work. "Rush to the exit doors, then leap down the stairs, then finally run to get the train." Humans need first/then/finally or else we might execute instructions concurrently ("Boil water. Dice an onion.") Although, these words are unnecessary if a the beginning a human is told, "follow these instructions in order," as a compiler is told to read files. "Finally" is the signal to stop executing after the last statement, compilers use EOF, close tags etc to achieve the same thing. So, the analogy is quite precise if imperative sentences and code are compared and the whole prose text is compared to the code plus the compiler.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#135

Post by mvalle »

mattmiller wrote: post #130
larrik wrote: post #3

I think he's right. In college, my CS 2 class was taught by a professor very different than the rest of the teachers there. He wanted all of your programming assignments on paper[1]. Then, you'd get it back with every possible bug marked in your program, and he very rarely missed any[2]. That was the first time in college I thought "I really need to learn how to do that!" I went to a state school, so maybe all you gu…

I transferred to an under funded state school from a well funded community college. The CC has computer labs that CS classes were taught in. The state school taught CS with chalk boards. I learned much more with chalk boards.

When I first started university, I didn't realise how important pen and paper is. In my course, we use pen and paper more than we do computers.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#137

Post by absconditus »

windsurfer wrote: post #62
david927 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Language can be expressive in ambiguous ways, with multiple valid ways to express the same emotion. Notation should be definable, unambiguous, and precise. The fewer ways to express something, the better.

Why?: die unless $file; if (!$file){ die; } Which is neater? Should I not be able to write the first one?

The problem is that the language becomes virtually unknowable. Perl has a ridiculous amount of syntax. I am sure that I could find half a dozen lines of Perl code that the average Perl developer would not understand because everyone only knows part of the language.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#138

Post by absconditus »

kenjackson wrote: post #66
tjogin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in programming you don't have to worry about capturing the audience, the development of the characters, the story arch, being clear but not being obvious, etc. Both in programming and writing, the actual writing part is the easiest part. And while bad programmers can make a program work, and bad writers can tell a story, it takes good ones to do it coherently, efficiently and enjoyably. It's not the exact same th…

They're not nearly the same thing. The scope of modern literature has hardly moved in hundreds of years. Compare Updike, Roth, or Mitchell to Dante or Shakespeare -- they'd seem like near contemporaries in programming. In contrast, in the past, programs to do Newtons method or compute trig tables were often the full scope of a program. You certainly never had a Halo 3, Windows 7, Google Search, or WordLens applicatio…

This is called taking an analogy too literally.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#139

Post by kenjackson »

tjogin wrote: post #112
kenjackson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not nearly the same thing. The scope of modern literature has hardly moved in hundreds of years. Compare Updike, Roth, or Mitchell to Dante or Shakespeare -- they'd seem like near contemporaries in programming. In contrast, in the past, programs to do Newtons method or compute trig tables were often the full scope of a program. You certainly never had a Halo 3, Windows 7, Google Search, or WordLens applicatio…

They have one more thing in common; the text is read by other people . And the better written, the more effortless it is to understand. I think this aspect of it is what the slashdot author is mostly talking about, suggesting that if you write code as if you were writing to the next programmer , rather than to just the computer, your code will be better for it. Clearly, programming and writing isn't the same thing. N…

Unfortunately, this metaphor breaks at the onset. Programs aren't primarily written to be read by people. They're primarily meant to enable functionality. Readability of code is important, but not the ultimate ends -- it is part of the means.

But the important part of my post was that programming is about automation. It's not about weaving a story, even for the next programmer. It's about building abstractions for automation. And yes, its important for other programmers to build on top or service it, but given a choice between the right user experience and dev experience, user experience should usually win (although there will be some exceptions).

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#140

Post by kenjackson »

absconditus wrote: post #138
kenjackson wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not nearly the same thing. The scope of modern literature has hardly moved in hundreds of years. Compare Updike, Roth, or Mitchell to Dante or Shakespeare -- they'd seem like near contemporaries in programming. In contrast, in the past, programs to do Newtons method or compute trig tables were often the full scope of a program. You certainly never had a Halo 3, Windows 7, Google Search, or WordLens applicatio…

This is called taking an analogy too literally.

I'd say its called creating an analogy where one shouldn't. As a general rule, and maybe I'm too influenced by Dijkstra -- don't introduce metaphors/analogies where you can reasonably talk w/o one. In this case, no clarity was introduced by its addition.

It's like adding gravy to mashed potatoes. Sure it may make the potatoes taste better, but now you can't put the gravy back in the gravy bowl, can you?

Post reply on HN