4 ms·

I get the opposite message, which is that programming tools and the process of programming are so bad, it's hard to get a computer to do a simple task for you w

I get the opposite message, which is that programming tools and the process of programming are so bad, it's hard to get a computer to do a simple task for you without tearing your hair out, never mind building a UI. A better IDE (basically a better text editor) doesn't even scratch the surface.

webjprgm 11y ago
Yeah. They said for doing simple things rather than building complex systems the current tools are not very convenient. I find it really useful to use Ruby's built-in CSV library to process data for spreadsheets then visualize it with a graph in Numbers. I pull data from copy-paste tables, extract from Sqlite databases embedded in applications, etc. But for something like scanning Facebook friends as they suggested I'd have to first figure out the API or how to scrape the data. Once I figured that out it probably wouldn't be too hard to write a script for it. I could probably even put it in a crontab (LaunchAgent plist on a Mac). Anyway, I think there's a huge opportunity to empower more people who are inquisitive and maybe somewhat technical but are not programmers. Make it easy for these people to solve problems rather than trying to teach them to "program". The end goal in my mind is the StarTrek programming model where you discuss with the computer what you want to do to solve a problem. Those crew members are scientists and engineers but only a few of them are "programmers". (StarTrek is a useful yardstick because we seem to like copying technology out of it. E.g. StarTrek communicator which is the late 90s cell phone and StarTrek PADD which is the SmartPhone/tablet.)
- andy_ppp 11y ago
  And you end up with Moriarty taking over the ship? ;-)
mkozlows 11y ago
The thing is, it's easy to say something is hard. Programming is definitely hard! The question is: Is it hard essentially, or is it hard accidentally? That is, can you remove unnecessary complexity from programming and suddenly it'll become easy? That was the proposition behind first LightTable, and then Eve as originally conceived. But neither of them really found a satisfying answer, a way to say "hey, for making your web app or whatever, if you throw away your existing stuff and use this tool/process, now it's super-easy." That implies heavily that a lot of the complexity and difficulty is essential. Not all of it -- things will get easier and better over time, as they have over the last ten years -- but enough so that blowing it all up and starting from scratch isn't likely to lead to wins.
- skybrian 11y ago
  There's certainly a lot of accidental complexity that comes from lack of standardization. For example, think about how complicated character sets were to deal with before Unicode. Then compare the mess of different kinds of Unicode encodings to standardizing on UTF-8. Or take file formats before XML/JSON/Protobufs. Or, going further back, floating point before IEEE 754. I agree that blowing it all up is not a win, which is why accidental complexity goes away only gradually, and it's partially a process of hiding it rather than removing it, with lots of politics along the way.
- ibdknox 11y ago
  > But neither of them really found a satisfying answer, a way to say "hey, for making your web app or whatever, if you throw away your existing stuff and use this tool/process, now it's super-easy." Actually, we think we did. We're just not choosing that as the primary focus of the workflow in Eve. Now with a better version of the editor and with a bit more work on the UI builder, I suspect we could rebuild the entire foursquare clone in under a week. If we had VCS so that multiple people could work together on it, it might only be a couple of days. This foundation for programming has lots of implications for building "real software" - it's actually based on research for making distributed systems much easier to build. [1] We'll see more of that as we go since we're bootstrapping bits and pieces. One of the first things that will transition over is the compiler, if that gives you any indication of the level of sophistication you can achieve with this programming model. [1]: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/eurosys10-boom.pdf http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/eurosys10-boom.pdf
- gcv 11y ago
  > Is it hard essentially, or is it hard accidentally? Not exactly either, but certainly a bit of both. Programming is hard primarily because it is so poorly understood. The entire field is in its infancy. Comparing it to art, I'm pretty sure we haven't even reached the "stick figures scrawled on a cave wall" stage yet. As Alan Kay pointed out we sure didn't invent an arch yet: http://squab.no-ip.com/collab/uploads/61/IsSoftwareEngineeringAnOxymoron.pdf http://squab.no-ip.com/collab/uploads/61/IsSoftwareEngineeri... It's nice to see the Eve team trying to do something at least slightly different from the same-old, same-old. Even if it looks a lot like some horrors of yore (FoxPro) when I squint.
jaredklewis 11y ago
Perhaps, but my intuition is that the bottleneck between most people and programming isn't the tools. It's that programming requires the programmer to conceptualize the problem formally, and then to formally define what he/she wants the computer to do. We can come up with better and better formal languages and ways for editing these languages (and probably should), but I would guess even a visual formal language, will still pose many of the same difficulties for users that existing formal languages do.

webjprgm 11y ago

Yeah. They said for doing simple things rather than building complex systems the current tools are not very convenient. I find it really useful to use Ruby's built-in CSV library to process data for spreadsheets then visualize it with a graph in Numbers. I pull data from copy-paste tables, extract from Sqlite databases embedded in applications, etc. But for something like scanning Facebook friends as they suggested I'd have to first figure out the API or how to scrape the data. Once I figured that out it probably wouldn't be too hard to write a script for it. I could probably even put it in a crontab (LaunchAgent plist on a Mac). Anyway, I think there's a huge opportunity to empower more people who are inquisitive and maybe somewhat technical but are not programmers. Make it easy for these people to solve problems rather than trying to teach them to "program". The end goal in my mind is the StarTrek programming model where you discuss with the computer what you want to do to solve a problem. Those crew members are scientists and engineers but only a few of them are "programmers". (StarTrek is a useful yardstick because we seem to like copying technology out of it. E.g. StarTrek communicator which is the late 90s cell phone and StarTrek PADD which is the SmartPhone/tablet.)

andy_ppp 11y ago
And you end up with Moriarty taking over the ship? ;-)

mkozlows 11y ago

The thing is, it's easy to say something is hard. Programming is definitely hard! The question is: Is it hard essentially, or is it hard accidentally? That is, can you remove unnecessary complexity from programming and suddenly it'll become easy? That was the proposition behind first LightTable, and then Eve as originally conceived. But neither of them really found a satisfying answer, a way to say "hey, for making your web app or whatever, if you throw away your existing stuff and use this tool/process, now it's super-easy." That implies heavily that a lot of the complexity and difficulty is essential. Not all of it -- things will get easier and better over time, as they have over the last ten years -- but enough so that blowing it all up and starting from scratch isn't likely to lead to wins.

skybrian 11y ago
There's certainly a lot of accidental complexity that comes from lack of standardization. For example, think about how complicated character sets were to deal with before Unicode. Then compare the mess of different kinds of Unicode encodings to standardizing on UTF-8. Or take file formats before XML/JSON/Protobufs. Or, going further back, floating point before IEEE 754. I agree that blowing it all up is not a win, which is why accidental complexity goes away only gradually, and it's partially a process of hiding it rather than removing it, with lots of politics along the way.
ibdknox 11y ago
> But neither of them really found a satisfying answer, a way to say "hey, for making your web app or whatever, if you throw away your existing stuff and use this tool/process, now it's super-easy." Actually, we think we did. We're just not choosing that as the primary focus of the workflow in Eve. Now with a better version of the editor and with a bit more work on the UI builder, I suspect we could rebuild the entire foursquare clone in under a week. If we had VCS so that multiple people could work together on it, it might only be a couple of days. This foundation for programming has lots of implications for building "real software" - it's actually based on research for making distributed systems much easier to build. [1] We'll see more of that as we go since we're bootstrapping bits and pieces. One of the first things that will transition over is the compiler, if that gives you any indication of the level of sophistication you can achieve with this programming model. [1]: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/eurosys10-boom.pdf http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/eurosys10-boom.pdf
gcv 11y ago
> Is it hard essentially, or is it hard accidentally? Not exactly either, but certainly a bit of both. Programming is hard primarily because it is so poorly understood. The entire field is in its infancy. Comparing it to art, I'm pretty sure we haven't even reached the "stick figures scrawled on a cave wall" stage yet. As Alan Kay pointed out we sure didn't invent an arch yet: http://squab.no-ip.com/collab/uploads/61/IsSoftwareEngineeringAnOxymoron.pdf http://squab.no-ip.com/collab/uploads/61/IsSoftwareEngineeri... It's nice to see the Eve team trying to do something at least slightly different from the same-old, same-old. Even if it looks a lot like some horrors of yore (FoxPro) when I squint.

jaredklewis 11y ago

Perhaps, but my intuition is that the bottleneck between most people and programming isn't the tools. It's that programming requires the programmer to conceptualize the problem formally, and then to formally define what he/she wants the computer to do. We can come up with better and better formal languages and ways for editing these languages (and probably should), but I would guess even a visual formal language, will still pose many of the same difficulties for users that existing formal languages do.