Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Sunday, 19 October 2014 at 04:55:55 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 23:38:35 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: don't you think that we are going in circles now? not that i'm tired of this conversation, but i see that we get each other's POVs, and have no more arguments to convince each other. ;-) I guess, when does anyone ever convince anyone else online? People usually just throw their arguments at each other and leave holding the same opinion. ;) I don't read books anymore even technical ones? ;-) I think the only technical book I've read in the last decade is Andrei's TDPL, which I bought in print and got about halfway through. I've probably read bits and pieces of maybe five other non-technical books here and there in the same timespan, which were all given to me as gifts. I've never read an ebook, yet I read extensively online. Books are an outdated form, now that we have blogs. i believe that blog posts and textbooks compliments each other. i prefer textbook for learning new language, for example, and read blogs to learn some interesting/funny/hidden features. That may be true now, but soon it will be just blogs. I don't know much about Oberon, but that gadgets UI sounds like it's still a GUI. sure, it's GUI, but with some consolish pieces dropped in. you can connect components and you can write some textual commands/scripts to modify component behavior. best from both worlds! ;-) The desktop UI paradigm needs to be completely redone, from the ground up. Current desktop GUIs are too limiting and the terminal is powerful but antiquated. The problem is how best to combine the two, since one is focused on keyboard input whether the other mostly uses trackpad/mouse. I suspect voice will have to be the new input to this new desktop GUI. I actually agree with you that some sort of component system like that is likely the future, even if it's only ultimately used to make developers' lives easier and largely unconfigured by users themselves it's simple enough for users to modify. changing layouts by dragging components, embedding components into components and so on. this things are mostly visual and easy. people love to customize their working environment if it's easy enough. ;-) I agree that customization should be made really easy, but what percentage of users ever configure their settings themselves now? I bet it's a negligible percentage. What I think is more likely is that they will pay someone to configure the component desktop you envision to suit them, but that person won't necessarily be a developer, more likely a power user. though I haven't looked much into the complex historical reasons why it hasn't happened yet. 'cause so-called software industry is not ready to die yet. ;-) with proper component system there will be no much sense in selling applications. and selling components is much harder: how many people will buy e-mail data source component? it's not even visual! and selling e-mail reader is worthless, 'cause people will deconstruct it to basic parts and build their own application, and will not buy shiny new version with improved interface. they will not even buy the full package if they only need one part of it, like faster e-mail data source component. so the only way to keep software bussines (as we know it) running is turning component system back to non-component one. take, for example, COM technology (which is badly done, but still usable component system). how much software uses COM to decouple application in reusable parts? even microsoft realised that this will be disaster and turned COM to advancing scripting interface instead of truly component system. I agree that the software business likely just didn't do it right, but I doubt that's all of it. Any component system isn't going to be as fast and efficient as a bespoke system. Maybe the hardware just wasn't fast enough for that lack of efficiency, but with how powerful hardware has gotten these days, maybe we're finally ready for it. have you ever seen BlackBox Component Builder? it's written in Component Pascal, but the basic principles are language-independent. i'm dreaming about BCB with D as base language... No, never heard of it, sounds interesting. try it, it's fun and free! ;-) you'll see component programming system in action. it's not component OS, but it's great programming environment nevertheless. D is almost capable of powering such system. if only i had more free time and motivation... creating something BCB-like can be that killer app D needs. I've loaded up a chapter from this pdf book about it: http://www.cslab.pepperdine.edu/warford/ComputingFundamentals/ I'll take a look.
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:34:17 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: The desktop UI paradigm needs to be completely redone, from the ground up. Current desktop GUIs are too limiting and the terminal is powerful but antiquated. The problem is how best to combine the two, since one is focused on keyboard input whether the other mostly uses trackpad/mouse. I suspect voice will have to be the new input to this new desktop GUI. i'm not sure that voice is the way. but i'm very bad as a prophet. ;-) I agree that customization should be made really easy, but what percentage of users ever configure their settings themselves now? I bet it's a negligible percentage. What I think is more likely is that they will pay someone to configure the component desktop you envision to suit them, but that person won't necessarily be a developer, more likely a power user. that's 'cause people need to click some obscure checkboxes to change something. yet if they can just drag a color from color picker to paint element, move some parts of UI around, change size and all this without digging in preferences windows (which aren't very appealing to average Joe), they doing this. it's all about making simple things simple and complex things possible. ;-) when people see how easy they can change some visual aspects, they may eventually try to go deeper. add a button with a simple text command. add another button with two commands. and so on. ;-) sure, most people will just recolor their UIs and change some layout. but that's important too, 'cause small things can have a big impact. I agree that the software business likely just didn't do it right, but I doubt that's all of it. ah, sure, that's not the *only* reason. everything has more than one reason. ;-) Any component system isn't going to be as fast and efficient as a bespoke system. it's a common misconception based on wrong attempts to build component systems. having one uniform language (thus dropping attempts to build one-size-fits-all system) makes component system very fast. at least not slower than any other system with dynamic libraries, and sometimes even faster. Oberon system was really fast, even with it's very poor compiler. the key is the solid language foundation, and D can give us this. I've loaded up a chapter from this pdf book about it: http://www.cslab.pepperdine.edu/warford/ComputingFundamentals/ I'll take a look. you can download BCB itself, it has nice dox and full sources. and it works under wine. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[OT] the uses of computing
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 00:06:10 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 23:31:45 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: You do realize that most people are clueless about how to fix those also, right? most people are stupid. No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn so much. Would you require that how to fix all that mechanical stuff be taught in schools too? but it is! or at least it was. it's all simple physics, you know. not a rocket science. Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from the general physical principles. Kids would never leave school if they had to learn all the stuff everybody says they should be forced to learn. ;) nobody should be *forced* to learn: it's pointless. yet kids are very curious, and they can be taught *alot* of things if they think that they are just playing. make it interesting, and you'll be amazed how much kids can learn almost without problems. Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they learn optional, not just fun but still required. Most of the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, is utterly useless. Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers. it's a huge difference between i miss my washing machine and all our communication and data processing systems are foobared. Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far more than the internet. They should use tools like Automator instead, no programming needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automator_(software) i wasn't talking about sorting out file mess. i was talking about tabular data processing, for example, with some logics and calculations that can't be done automatically without programming. Isn't that what people use Excel macros for? There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited than full programming languages but easier to use for the average person. Tablets are optimized for basic usage what is basic usage? i really don't know what tablets are for. what i can do with it? watching movie? listening music? reading book? yes, tablets can do this... badly. what else? All of the above, anything you'd use a portable computer for that doesn't require much typing and would benefit from a larger screen than your smartphone. I wouldn't say they do it all badly: it's the most portable TV you could ever have, if you use it to watch video. And you're not limited to the junk on the idiot box, you can download any video from the web and watch on the go. Most websites benefit from a larger screen also. i can listen music with my N900, and it fits in my pocket. movies? on tablet screen? no, thanks. books? electronic books are better. I've watched parts of movies on my 4.7 smartphone screen, which happens to have the best display I've ever used. Tablets are even better for video. I don't read books anymore, but with their high-res displays up to 200-300 ppi these days, reading text is very nice on tablets too. tablets are like XML: bad for everything. Now that's just low, you can't compare anything to the utter junk that is XML. :) Most people just need a basic appliance that isn't going to catch viruses or require registry hacks. give 'em wooden board with painting. it's great! It's a little better than that. ;) It is completely different, because there are tools like Automator to help you automate your workflow without needing to write anything. oh, please. i can do batch renaming with wildcards, and for any task that is more complex than that there *is* a need to write logic. scripts. graphic programming is a dead end. people drop icons in favor of alphabet 'cause alphabet is just better. Actually, the progression went the other way, people dropped text UIs for graphical UIs. :) I'm not saying _you_ need to leave the terminal, but for most people GUI tools like Automator are enough. If you need to communicate something on paper- well, nobody uses paper these days i wish that the goverment of my country knows about that. and banking. somehow they still insist to have everything written on paper. Well, the government is the most backwards part of any country. For most people, that is a better route, particularly if they don't need to modify the script as they go and just need it written once. so instead of spending ten minutes to write the script they'll spend a day searching for someone to hire and pay him money. great. thanks to such people we have don't put your pet into microwave-like instructions. and that instructions are pointless 'cause such people never reads any instructions
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:42:50 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: most people are stupid. No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn so much. that's why we should teach kids alot of things while their minds are clear and ready to absorb alot of knowledge. and, of course, we must teach them how to *use* that knowledge. Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from the general physical principles. yes, figuring this out without manuals will be hard. but learning physics (proper learning of *anything* for that matter) will give 'em understanding of base principles (mechanics, electricity, etc) and the ability to extract information from books. it's enough for simple fixes that doesn't require to produce hi-tech parts. Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they learn optional, not just fun but still required. Most of the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, is utterly useless. ah, i hated that so-called history lessons where i was forced to remebmer that in year i don't care about somebody who i don't care about did something i equally don't care about. ;-) yes, i'm sure that we should teach kids how to do things, not just making 'em remember that 4*8 is 32. tell 'em what multiplication is and then play games with them, games which involves using of multiplication. this way kids will learn how to use multiplication. no need to remember any tables. or let 'em build a simple robot and program it to do some funny things. it's exciting and they will learn many things about mechanics, electricity, programming... let 'em play a role of factory manager, for example, and they will develop a good understanding of how economics works. and so on. Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers. it's a huge difference between i miss my washing machine and all our communication and data processing systems are foobared. Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far more than the internet. most people can't see a whole picture. it's bad. we must teach kids to understand how different things are interconnected too. Isn't that what people use Excel macros for? aren't writing excel macros a programming? There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited than full programming languages but easier to use for the average person. i never meant that all people should learn full programming languages. they have to know how to write algorithms, but not necessary what pointer is or what is the difference between manual memory management and garbage collecting. yet if i'll show 'em simple recursive fibonacci function, they must be able to understand it. hey, it's lambda calculus, and lambda calculus is so simple, that even 7-year kid can understand it! i checked that, kids are really able to understand it. ;-) All of the above, anything you'd use a portable computer for that doesn't require much typing and would benefit from a larger screen than your smartphone. instagram and social networks. ;-) two of the most useless things on the planet. And you're not limited to the junk on the idiot box, you can download any video from the web and watch on the go. and can't easily mark and categorize that until someone wrote web-service for it. 'cause for doing it locally i need... ah, to write some scripts. and i have no keyboard (no, that on-screen crap may be good for tweeting, but it's generally unusable). i.e. tablets *are* idiot boxes, just with fancy pictures from over the world. I don't read books anymore even technical ones? ;-) but with their high-res displays up to 200-300 ppi these days, reading text is very nice on tablets too. i prefer to use some specialised device to reading text. it's smaller, it was made especially for reading texts and it can last alot longer without recharging. i mean that tablets can do all that things, but specialised devices are just better. and if i know that i'll have to spend some time waithing for something, i'll take my player and ebook with me. or subnotebook -- hey, it has real keyboard! tablets are like XML: bad for everything. Now that's just low, you can't compare anything to the utter junk that is XML. :) ah, you are right. tablets sometimes can be useful. ;-) Actually, the progression went the other way, people dropped text UIs for graphical UIs. :) that's 'cause they never used good UIs and we have no truly component environments. Oberon system was great even with it's TUI, and it was really exciting with it's gadgets UI. i'm still missing my Oberon system. by the way, if D will develop good runtime reflection (which is
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 20:50:42 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:42:50 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: most people are stupid. No disagreement there, but even the smart ones can only learn so much. that's why we should teach kids alot of things while their minds are clear and ready to absorb alot of knowledge. and, of course, we must teach them how to *use* that knowledge. So much of what's taught today is so worthless that I'm skeptical of anyone claiming kids should be taught a lot, as if you know what that is. And given our long history of barely being able to teach any knowledge, with almost no success in getting people to use it for something original, that seems like a dead end too. Better to just let people take their own path and find what works best for them. Many people do not learn simple physics in school, and even if they did, wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to fix a specific mechanical system like a washing machine from the general physical principles. yes, figuring this out without manuals will be hard. but learning physics (proper learning of *anything* for that matter) will give 'em understanding of base principles (mechanics, electricity, etc) and the ability to extract information from books. it's enough for simple fixes that doesn't require to produce hi-tech parts. I disagree, as there is a large gap of knowledge between the base principles and the complex systems we build on top. How many people would be able to diagnose and force reallocation of bad sectors in their hard disk if hit with that problem, given the basics of how hard disks work? I actually ran into this recently and found little info about it, meaning not many people do it. Yeah, we agree if you truly mean making most of what they learn optional, not just fun but still required. Most of the stuff we force on kids today, like multiplication tables, how to divide numbers by hand, or memorizing historical dates, is utterly useless. ah, i hated that so-called history lessons where i was forced to remebmer that in year i don't care about somebody who i don't care about did something i equally don't care about. ;-) yes, i'm sure that we should teach kids how to do things, not just making 'em remember that 4*8 is 32. tell 'em what multiplication is and then play games with them, games which involves using of multiplication. this way kids will learn how to use multiplication. no need to remember any tables. or let 'em build a simple robot and program it to do some funny things. it's exciting and they will learn many things about mechanics, electricity, programming... let 'em play a role of factory manager, for example, and they will develop a good understanding of how economics works. and so on. We agree that practical application is a better way to motivate learning than absorbing theory from a book first, at least for most students. But some kids are just not going to enjoy those multiplication games or robot building and I'd say it's better for them to choose something else to pursue, rather than forcing them to pick up multiplication when it's a completely useless skill, now that everybody carries around a calculator with them in their phone these days. Yet, civilization is made up of people like you, who would all miss those mechanical systems far more than computers. it's a huge difference between i miss my washing machine and all our communication and data processing systems are foobared. Yet, I bet you they'll want that washing machine working far more than the internet. most people can't see a whole picture. it's bad. we must teach kids to understand how different things are interconnected too. At this point, _I_ can't see your whole picture. :) I made a simple point, that building and fixing washing machines or software is something most people don't want to do. Saying they should learn those things anyway doesn't make sense. Isn't that what people use Excel macros for? aren't writing excel macros a programming? My understanding is that you can write simple mathematical formulas, which is as far as most probably go, even though it may also allow iteration and other programming constructs. My point, that I made below, is that people who need some of the power of programming without the training can use cruder tools like these most of the time. There are specialized tools for the job, that are more limited than full programming languages but easier to use for the average person. i never meant that all people should learn full programming languages. they have to know how to write algorithms, but not necessary what pointer is or what is the difference between manual memory management and garbage collecting. yet if i'll show 'em simple recursive fibonacci function, they must be able to understand it. hey, it's
Re: [OT] the uses of computing
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 23:38:35 + Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: don't you think that we are going in circles now? not that i'm tired of this conversation, but i see that we get each other's POVs, and have no more arguments to convince each other. ;-) i respect your opinions but just don't agree with them. ;-) besides, it's increasingly hard for me to answer, 'cause my English writing skill is awful. i can understand you but can't clearly express myself. I don't read books anymore even technical ones? ;-) I think the only technical book I've read in the last decade is Andrei's TDPL, which I bought in print and got about halfway through. I've probably read bits and pieces of maybe five other non-technical books here and there in the same timespan, which were all given to me as gifts. I've never read an ebook, yet I read extensively online. Books are an outdated form, now that we have blogs. i believe that blog posts and textbooks compliments each other. i prefer textbook for learning new language, for example, and read blogs to learn some interesting/funny/hidden features. I don't know much about Oberon, but that gadgets UI sounds like it's still a GUI. sure, it's GUI, but with some consolish pieces dropped in. you can connect components and you can write some textual commands/scripts to modify component behavior. best from both worlds! ;-) I actually agree with you that some sort of component system like that is likely the future, even if it's only ultimately used to make developers' lives easier and largely unconfigured by users themselves it's simple enough for users to modify. changing layouts by dragging components, embedding components into components and so on. this things are mostly visual and easy. people love to customize their working environment if it's easy enough. ;-) though I haven't looked much into the complex historical reasons why it hasn't happened yet. 'cause so-called software industry is not ready to die yet. ;-) with proper component system there will be no much sense in selling applications. and selling components is much harder: how many people will buy e-mail data source component? it's not even visual! and selling e-mail reader is worthless, 'cause people will deconstruct it to basic parts and build their own application, and will not buy shiny new version with improved interface. they will not even buy the full package if they only need one part of it, like faster e-mail data source component. so the only way to keep software bussines (as we know it) running is turning component system back to non-component one. take, for example, COM technology (which is badly done, but still usable component system). how much software uses COM to decouple application in reusable parts? even microsoft realised that this will be disaster and turned COM to advancing scripting interface instead of truly component system. have you ever seen BlackBox Component Builder? it's written in Component Pascal, but the basic principles are language-independent. i'm dreaming about BCB with D as base language... No, never heard of it, sounds interesting. try it, it's fun and free! ;-) you'll see component programming system in action. it's not component OS, but it's great programming environment nevertheless. D is almost capable of powering such system. if only i had more free time and motivation... creating something BCB-like can be that killer app D needs. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
