On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 20:12:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I'm not suggesting getting rid of all plain text, but I'm
definitely for replacing most of the text we need to define
structural information.
Furthermore, a custom binary implementation wouldn't be a
problem
as long as there is a well defined exchange format that all
IDE's
would share. This could simply be the code files we use now.
I suppose it depends on the way you're used to working. Me, I
don't even
use GUI's (well, my "GUI" is so bare bones that my manager
doesn't even
understand how I can even begin to use it), much less IDE's,
and I
generally prefer formats that can be processed by generic tools
that
aren't necessarily catered for manipulating code.
Well I mostly learned programming using Borland Delphi, so I'm
kinda spoiled with GUI goodness.
I agree that current alternatives are less than stellar. I
think
that's mostly because any attempts either go too far (visual
programming), or not nearly far enough (just listing the
available objects).
No, I think the issue is that nobody has truly tackled the real
problem
yet. Visual programming is just a misguided attempt at modelling
computation with physical metaphors, which don't work because
they
utterly fall flat in capturing the sheer, immense complexity of
computation. Most people don't even understand rudimentary
complexity /
computational theory (and through no fault of theirs: the
nature of the
subject is extremely complex, no pun intended), much less have
any sort
of useful visualization of it that is generically applicable.
Listing
available objects to me is like printing a catalogue of
telescopes when
the task at hand is to study astronomy. Until we shift our
attention
from the toys of syntax and representation to truly capture the
nature
of computation, the current state of things will continue to
hold.
Yeah, the whole software engineering field still seems to be in
its infancy.
Unfortunately I don't have anything concrete. Only ideas, that
I
will eventually try to work out, when I have the time. (Don't
hold your breath)
I do wish that programmers would be more open to such ideas.
There is too much pointless bickering about miniscule syntactic
changes, yet no one seems to be interested in fixing the
archaic
use of plain text files.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality
:-)
We like to bicker about syntax because everybody understands it
and has
direct experience of it. Semantics -- we know we need it, and
we've
dabbled in it some, but nobody really understands it in its
entirety, so
as long as it's Turing-complete (whatever *that* means... :P),
that's
good enough for us. Leave us the time to argue over syntax and
how to
make the "right" coffee.
Oh feel free too keep bickering, I'll even join you:) I was just
being a bit dramatic, and maybe hoping to find someone with
similar ideas.
On a more serious note, though, I classify the use of plain
text files
vs. whatever alternative representation format to be equally
trivial as
bikeshedding over syntax. The important issues at hand are the
*semantics* of programming -- how to capture the sheer
complexity of
computation in a way that can make extremely complex
computations
tractable to our limited mental capacity. The history of the
progress
of programming is keyed on exactly this issue.
It's not exactly the representation format I'm worried about, but
rather the organization of code.
