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

The Future of Programming (2013)

worrydream.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: The Future of Programming (2013)

#31

Post by mrec »

zvrba wrote: post #22
fhood wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was one of my professors favorite gripes. He loved to tell stories about how companies would reinvent algorithms (usually multiple times) that had been published in the 70's and 80's

The problem here is search. The problem may have been solved, but finding the relevant paper is like looking for a needle in the haystack. It doesn't help that terminology has changed during the years...

> It doesn't help that terminology has changed during the years...

As has hardware. Trivial example, but linked lists made a lot more sense in the 1970s than they do today.

Re: The Future of Programming (2013)

#32

Post by shalabhc »

symstym wrote: post #24

I think this attitude of "we solved these problems decades ago!" is rather naive and sometimes arrogant. I think it's a fantastic talk, and that Bret Victor and Alan Kay are geniuses. But I feel that they both promote the idea that we definitively solved all these important computing problems years ago, and that people are just too clueless/resistant to catch on. Yes, I agree that many good ideas have been culturally…

> But for the most part, the reason these great past ideas are not in use is because nobody has made them into a compelling product.

I think you're overestimating the market's ability to select good ideas and specifically, promote long term scientific advances. A lot of variables affect what succeeds, e.g. marketing, coincidence, network effects etc.

You cannot leave everything to the market (i.e. what people adopt) and expect great science to come from it. Many times, great science (and maths) comes from the compelling drive of people to discover and create something new. These talks are encouraging that kind of research, and I don't see them saying they 'have it figured out', but rather pointing out ideas they think should be explored more extensively.

Re: The Future of Programming (2013)

#33

Post by taeric »

symstym wrote: post #24

I think this attitude of "we solved these problems decades ago!" is rather naive and sometimes arrogant. I think it's a fantastic talk, and that Bret Victor and Alan Kay are geniuses. But I feel that they both promote the idea that we definitively solved all these important computing problems years ago, and that people are just too clueless/resistant to catch on. Yes, I agree that many good ideas have been culturally…

Agreed. I fall into this trap more often than I'd care to admit. But I've comforted myself into thinking this is not limited to our field. Look at folks convinced that Romans knew how to make better concrete. Or that Damascus steel is somehow beyond current capabilities.

Are there gems that were lost in the past? Almost certainly. Could we have done better by not getting obsessed with constantly rewriting things into new languages? Debatable. My money is on not. And I hate js.

Re: The Future of Programming (2013)

#34

Post by usefulcat »

symstym wrote: post #24

I think this attitude of "we solved these problems decades ago!" is rather naive and sometimes arrogant. I think it's a fantastic talk, and that Bret Victor and Alan Kay are geniuses. But I feel that they both promote the idea that we definitively solved all these important computing problems years ago, and that people are just too clueless/resistant to catch on. Yes, I agree that many good ideas have been culturally…

Timing can also play a huge role in the success of an invention or the widespread adoption of an idea.

Re: The Future of Programming (2013)

#38

Post by BjoernKW »

fhood wrote: post #18
macintux wrote: post #2

One of my all-time favorite talks. The IT industry is pretty bad in general at knowing what problems have previously been solved.

This was one of my professors favorite gripes. He loved to tell stories about how companies would reinvent algorithms (usually multiple times) that had been published in the 70's and 80's

Apart from making information easily retrievable, which ironically academia at least used to be notoriously bad at, inventing an algorithm and using it effectively in an application in many cases are two very different matters.

These arguments often get handwavy rather quickly. Real-life applications have to accommodate edge cases and non-functional requirements, something a scientific paper doesn't need to account for.

That's perfectly fine. It isn't a scientist's job to worry about implementation details but those shouldn't be brushed off lightly either.

Re: The Future of Programming (2013)

#40

Post by fasquoika »

Why does everyone seem to believe this talk is about the fact that these problems were "solved" decades ago? My takeaway is that, no, these things weren't solved, they were abandoned. We got tunnel vision and decided that a handful of ideas were what programming is, rather than just a tiny subset. This talk isn't about how the early programmers were better at everything, if anything it's the opposite, that we should question their decisions and not take anything for granted.

"Do you know why these ideas, and so many other good ideas came about in this particular time period, the 60's-early 70's? Why did it all happen then? It's because it was late enough that technology kinda got to the point where you could actually kinda do things with computers, but it was still early enough that nobody knew what programming was. Nobody knew what programming was supposed to be. And they knew they didn't know, so they tried everything."

Post reply on HN