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

Eve: Programming designed for humans

programming.witheve.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 401 posts

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#331

Post by woah »

bloaf wrote: post #226
zenobit256 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is this more "humane"? Programming languages by design are for human consumption. In what way is this "special" or "designed" for them?

Here, I think you are wrong. I strongly suspect that while the high-level features of programming languages are chosen for human consumption, the implementation details and tooling are often chosen arbitrarily, or for machine-convenience. For example, I don't generally consider language environments where the leading white space on a line matters, or languages where trailing white space matters to be "designed for hu…

Or it asks the user to use tabs? Or an editor that inserts spaces when you press tab? Indentation has never been a stumbling block for anyone but the most junior of programmers.

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#332

Post by _halgari »

OOPMan wrote: post #326

Looking at the examples, it seems like Eve is really just a DSL for performing a number of common preset interactions within the web browser. Maybe I missed something but it doesn't seem like this is really designed for usage outside the browser environment? As such it seems like this is really just a very high-level layer on top of JS rather than a general-purpose programming language, a lot like Jupyter Notebook an…

Exactly my thoughts. Every DSL needs an escape hatch at some point. What do I do when EVE isn't fast enough or lacks some feature I need.

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#333

Post by strictfp »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #329
_mhyx wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good tooling, easy to understand, unambiguous? Sounds like Java. Why can't people just use Java?

there's quite a lot of bad practices surrounding the language back from where the enterprise tooling was a mess and xml was the rage, we're ten years past that but the language hate has never ceased (see my comment: -1) I get the hate from the frameworks craze, but if one is in a position of being forced a crazy bloated framework without recourse that's not Java fault. apart from that, you can debug servers the other…

I have held out since I love the language. I started using Java when it was new and actually very pragmatic and useful. Hated the enterprise phase, got bogged down by it but rose from the ashes. Now I'm a strong proponent of simplicity and libs over frameworks. And Java has great speed and simplicity for most tasks when memory management isn't a problem. But it's a constant struggle against old values in the business. And it doesn't take many conservative and bureucratic people to ruin a creative crowd. So I am looking to jump ship to what I consider in many ways inferior languages just to be able to be part of a modern culture.

To be clear, I still work at a company which is extremely forward (in averyting in beta sort of way). But still these old values hold everyone back and cause endless discussions of frameworks, processes and control structures vs creativity and speed.

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#334

Post by [deleted] »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #329
_mhyx wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good tooling, easy to understand, unambiguous? Sounds like Java. Why can't people just use Java?

there's quite a lot of bad practices surrounding the language back from where the enterprise tooling was a mess and xml was the rage, we're ten years past that but the language hate has never ceased (see my comment: -1) I get the hate from the frameworks craze, but if one is in a position of being forced a crazy bloated framework without recourse that's not Java fault. apart from that, you can debug servers the other…

[deleted]

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#335

Post by a-saleh »

jbclements wrote: post #150

I think that Eve is tackling the wrong problem. Allow me an analogy: "Bronk, the math designed for humans." Instead of dense algebraic expressions like "3x+49", you get to write "thrice the value of x plus 49." You may consider this a straw man, but I think that if you look hard at existing programming languages, you'll see that they are all designed for humans, and that the challenge in programming is in formulating…

> Should languages create higher-level abstractions to allow humans to reason about programs more efficiently? Yes! But that's not what this environment is about.

I think it actually is. Under the hood, when you look beyond the "Literate programming is awesome" it seems to be more along the lines of terse reactive prolog?

I am not sure if they managed to do what they envisioned, but this might be the "next spread-sheet".

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#336

Post by [deleted] »

imh wrote: post #243
jbclements wrote: post #150

I think that Eve is tackling the wrong problem. Allow me an analogy: "Bronk, the math designed for humans." Instead of dense algebraic expressions like "3x+49", you get to write "thrice the value of x plus 49." You may consider this a straw man, but I think that if you look hard at existing programming languages, you'll see that they are all designed for humans, and that the challenge in programming is in formulating…

The math example is more informative when it's not something trivial. For example, take the following notion about a sequence of X: ∀ e, ∀ d, ∃ N : ∀ n > N, P(|Xn - Y| > e) A more human way to say this is that eventually, we will become arbitrarily confident that X is arbitrarily close to Y. This is the notion of convergence in probability, and the formalism of that concept is way easier to process with a little huma…

[deleted]

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#337

Post by zubairq »

jhomedall wrote: post #257
zubairq wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried Jupyter... I couldn't figure it out. Could you post a link to a tutorial that I could use?

The easiest way (and the method I use) is to just use the version packaged with Anaconda. See: http://jupyter.readthedocs.io/en/latest/install.html#id3 . There are also instructions on that page you can follow (installation via pip) if you already have a reasonably modern version of Python installed, and you have an appropriate C compiler available. This is a pain to configure if you are using a Windows machine. Assu…

I tried the https://try.jupyter.org/ and that was what I could not figure out. It looks like some kind of csv editor once I got to see some output

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#338

Post by xj9 »

chongli wrote: post #307
xj9 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can eliminate software engineering as a profession our work will be done. There will be nothing left for humans to do, because at that point we will have invented a General AI. Up until that point, software engineering will be a well paid job. I really don't understand this attitude that everyone should be a programmer or that programming should be easy. It isn't easy. Obviously, we should remove unnecessary fr…

nobody expects everyone to be a physicist or chemical engineer. Specialization is a good thing. The difference with software engineers is that they have the power to build their own tools; physicists and chemical engineers largely don't, unless they themselves are also software engineers. You aren't going to use knowledge of chemistry to build general software but you can always find a use for software engineering in…

Don't quote me out of context

I definitely think people should be exposed to programming in school, but we study physics and chemistry there too and nobody expects everyone to be a physicist or chemical engineer. Specialization is a good thing.

I am saying that people should be taught programming in school, like literacy and mathematics, but that doing so is not going to prepare students to make production-grade software. We need actual engineers for that.

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#339

Post by Too »

lucb1e wrote: post #328
the_af wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an extreme position. Function names are a valuable hint of what the function is supposed to do. But if the name doesn't match the implementation, which one is wrong? We don't know.

> We don't know. I don't know about you but I certainly know that if a printLine function accidentally does something else, it's definitely the code that's wrong and not the function name.

Even if the product has been running flawlessly in production for 5+ years?

"Proven in use" and backwards compatibility is a bitch.

Re: Eve: Programming designed for humans

#340

Post by iamwil »

loeber wrote: post #109

I like the look of this project, and it's in many ways inspiring, but here's my cynical take: I think that Eve won't be conducive to creating applications beyond a few hundred lines of code -- after that, the "human-friendly" programming paradigm becomes an obstacle to production. Once people actually understand how the code works, the document style becomes superfluous. I suspect that Eve will be a great learning to…

Read up on Daedelus language and Datalog that Eve is based on. It's pretty powerful. You just haven't looked deep enough.
Post reply on HN