8 ms·

What is code?

80 points by wyclif 11y ago

mashmac2 11y ago
If you haven't seen the Bloomberg version of 'What is code?', take a look. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-cod... It's much longer, but also much more detailed and in-depth.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- scott_s 11y ago
  HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9698870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9698870
- wuschel 11y ago
  Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software by Charles Petzold is an excellent book I have recently begun to read. It's even longer that the Bloomberg post, and also such much more detailed and in-depth (-; In fact, I found the book very enjoyable. It gives a nice pedagogic twist on how information can processed with hardware. It has been discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1936474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1936474
  - veritas3241 11y ago
    I just picked this book up as well. I've been trying to find resources that go from first principles to real-world implementation of something and this is the best example I've found so far. Enjoy!
- sanderjd 11y ago
  I really liked that article and it was super fun to read, but as I read the OP, I found myself thinking, "wow, this is a much more succinct and far clearer version". I sent Paul Ford's article to my friends and family, and none of them read it because it didn't pay off with an answer to the title question for many thousands of words. This article seems like a better one to send people who really don't know what people mean when they talk about "code".
maxwellito 11y ago
It remind me a post from Bloomberg...
- 075 11y ago
  Yup. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-cod...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
peperino_pomoro 11y ago
baby don't hurt me
- Yomguithereal 11y ago
  no more
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - biggio 11y ago
    what is love?
0x0dea 11y ago
$ whatis code code: nothing appropriate.
- 9fb29947 11y ago
  $ md5 <<< code 7844a93ad4b97169834dade975b5beff
s_kilk 11y ago
We just don't know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0Y2hVe_bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0Y2hVe_bw
teh_klev 11y ago
>"Writing a program and then running it is magic, in a way." Even after 30 years in the industry it still feels this way (most days).
- pohl 11y ago
  After 30 years of bringing things into existence via mere incantation, I still forgive them.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Once upon a time, would-be magicians believed that a mastery of obscure knowledge and arcane incantations could change reality. We are their heirs. Unlike them, we don't have to dream or lie. We speak correctly, and earth and fire heed our call. Unliving metal stirs at our command. We summon daemons and bind them to obedience. We build constructs of pure thought-stuff, and conjure them into being through effort of will. We are wizards and sourcerors, conjurers and magicians. We are what poets can only dream of.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      You should attend career day at local schools.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        This is the part where I blush and attempt to hide in the corner.
    - veddox 11y ago
      We speak wrongly, and we become the sorcerer's apprentice :D I love that little piece, I've got to save it somewhere!
      - Kalium 11y ago
        "Sourceror's Apprentice" needs to be a job title for a junior engineer somewhere.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
parennoob 11y ago
1. Code used in the article seems to be from https://github.com/inueni/birdy https://github.com/inueni/birdy. 2. The howlong = (today-ltdate2).days line doesn't follow PEP8.
config_yml 11y ago
Code is the highest level of specification, my RE teacher always told me.
- supahfly_remix 11y ago
  Respectfully, that's incorrect. The requirements (ideally, in a document) are the specification, the code is an implementation of the specification. For example, you might want to software to take the FFT of something. Whether you choose to code it as decimation-in-time or frequency is up to you if the requirements do not specify.
  - throwaway1967 11y ago
    ...And once implemented, the implementation is more specific than the "specification" (a document detailing the requirements). That's why the OP said, correctly, that code is the highest level of specification, because nothing can be more specialized than code (as you said correctly, an implementation is less specialized than code). Also cf. Operational Semantics (no, not denotational), which is literally the highest level of specification, and is runnable code.
    - dadrian 11y ago
      Case in point: OpenSSL. More of a TLS specification than the RFC is, nowadays.
    - supahfly_remix 11y ago
      it's more specific, yes, but those differences don't matter if they aren't requirements.
      - candu 11y ago
        Those differences definitely matter if people come to depend on them. This is really a debate between prescriptive and descriptive schools of specification ;)
  - 11y ago
vxNsr 11y ago
Am I missing some sorta punchline? or are they shamelessly ripping off the bloomberg headline to grab more eyeballs? I guess it's because both magazines are in the finance space and Bloomberg made waves only a few months ago with their piece that I'm having trouble not seeing this as trying to ride on coat-tails. Edit: mediumdeviation makes a fair point, I didn't really think about the fact that economist explains is a regular column, I still think they coulda come up with a more creative title (How Programming Works, How Programmers Work, What is a Programmer, What Code Does, Java: More Than Just Coffee, Code: The Hitchhiker's Guide, etc) re: the newspaper thing: I get a weekly, bound, glossy set of papers that can only be described as a magazine, if they wanna be called a newspaper maybe they should look more like Barron's (please don't I hate that set up).
- mediumdeviation 11y ago
  How many other ways are there to title an article explaining, essentially, what is computer code? "The Economist Explains" is a regular column where the newspaper (not magazine, mind you, the Economist is very particular about that) explains a wide variety of issue, mostly current but not always, as in this case, and makes them accessible concisely to those not in the field. That Bloomberg published an in-depth report on the same issue a few months ago, and this short column appearing now is merely a coincidence, and suggesting otherwise is completely ridiculous.
  - davelnewton 11y ago
    I'd be... surprised if it was "merely a coincidence". That's almost never how the publishing industry works. (And I do have some info that suggests otherwise, but as I can't source it, it's anecdotal... but strong.)
SimeVidas 11y ago
Baby, don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.
sanderjd 11y ago
> Worried that your job is in danger of being automated away by software? Learning to code could be a useful insurance policy. I often worry that we're setting ourselves up for major failure here. There is no fundamental principle that suggests most kinds of programming are any less susceptible to automation than any other kind of work. Especially the kinds of things that are taught in most "learn to code" programs – simple web applications – are increasingly commoditized or able to be built out of commodity pieces, and that trend will only increase. Another popular reason to learn to code is to do data analysis or procedural tasks for your line of business, but in the long run, those tasks are probably better served by more purpose-built tools that have more in common with spreadsheets than the types of things professional software developers do. I guess my point is that there seems to be a meme that extolls the virtues of "learning to code" as an end, rather than as a means to be more effective at something else. I'd rather see articles about what those somethings-else are, and how knowing how to program can augment them, but those seem fewer and further between.
- outworlder 11y ago
  > There is no fundamental principle that suggests most kinds of programming are any less susceptible to automation than any other kind of work Well, as a fundamental principle, there's the Halting Problem. The simplest programming tasks will be simplified to some extend or be commoditised. In much of the same way we can purchase website templates and website builders can get the trivial sites up and running with no knowledge. In the past, HTML was required knowledge to publish a blog, but not anymore. But there's a reason most professional applications are not developed with such tools. Given that, I expect the careers of programmers that aren't IDE-pilots are safe for the foreseeable future. Increasingly complex task will be, and already are, being automated. But so far, all that progress has only increased the programmer's leverage. > I guess my point is that there seems to be a meme that extolls the virtues of "learning to code" as an end, rather than as a means to be more effective at something else. I completely agree with that. Outside of IT, there are many areas that would benefit from some programming knowledge and are currently under-served.
  - wuschel 11y ago

80 points by wyclif 11y ago

If you haven't seen the Bloomberg version of 'What is code?', take a look. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-cod... It's much longer, but also much more detailed and in-depth.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
scott_s 11y ago
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9698870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9698870
wuschel 11y ago
Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software by Charles Petzold is an excellent book I have recently begun to read. It's even longer that the Bloomberg post, and also such much more detailed and in-depth (-; In fact, I found the book very enjoyable. It gives a nice pedagogic twist on how information can processed with hardware. It has been discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1936474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1936474
- veritas3241 11y ago
  I just picked this book up as well. I've been trying to find resources that go from first principles to real-world implementation of something and this is the best example I've found so far. Enjoy!
sanderjd 11y ago
I really liked that article and it was super fun to read, but as I read the OP, I found myself thinking, "wow, this is a much more succinct and far clearer version". I sent Paul Ford's article to my friends and family, and none of them read it because it didn't pay off with an answer to the title question for many thousands of words. This article seems like a better one to send people who really don't know what people mean when they talk about "code".

maxwellito 11y ago

It remind me a post from Bloomberg...

075 11y ago
Yup. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-code/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-paul-ford-what-is-cod...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

peperino_pomoro 11y ago

baby don't hurt me

Yomguithereal 11y ago
no more
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- biggio 11y ago
  what is love?

0x0dea 11y ago

$ whatis code code: nothing appropriate.

9fb29947 11y ago
$ md5 <<< code 7844a93ad4b97169834dade975b5beff

s_kilk 11y ago

We just don't know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0Y2hVe_bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh0Y2hVe_bw

teh_klev 11y ago

>"Writing a program and then running it is magic, in a way." Even after 30 years in the industry it still feels this way (most days).

pohl 11y ago
After 30 years of bringing things into existence via mere incantation, I still forgive them.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Once upon a time, would-be magicians believed that a mastery of obscure knowledge and arcane incantations could change reality. We are their heirs. Unlike them, we don't have to dream or lie. We speak correctly, and earth and fire heed our call. Unliving metal stirs at our command. We summon daemons and bind them to obedience. We build constructs of pure thought-stuff, and conjure them into being through effort of will. We are wizards and sourcerors, conjurers and magicians. We are what poets can only dream of.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    You should attend career day at local schools.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      This is the part where I blush and attempt to hide in the corner.
  - veddox 11y ago
    We speak wrongly, and we become the sorcerer's apprentice :D I love that little piece, I've got to save it somewhere!
    - Kalium 11y ago
      "Sourceror's Apprentice" needs to be a job title for a junior engineer somewhere.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

parennoob 11y ago

1. Code used in the article seems to be from https://github.com/inueni/birdy https://github.com/inueni/birdy. 2. The howlong = (today-ltdate2).days line doesn't follow PEP8.

config_yml 11y ago

Code is the highest level of specification, my RE teacher always told me.

supahfly_remix 11y ago
Respectfully, that's incorrect. The requirements (ideally, in a document) are the specification, the code is an implementation of the specification. For example, you might want to software to take the FFT of something. Whether you choose to code it as decimation-in-time or frequency is up to you if the requirements do not specify.
- throwaway1967 11y ago
  ...And once implemented, the implementation is more specific than the "specification" (a document detailing the requirements). That's why the OP said, correctly, that code is the highest level of specification, because nothing can be more specialized than code (as you said correctly, an implementation is less specialized than code). Also cf. Operational Semantics (no, not denotational), which is literally the highest level of specification, and is runnable code.
  - dadrian 11y ago
    Case in point: OpenSSL. More of a TLS specification than the RFC is, nowadays.
  - supahfly_remix 11y ago
    it's more specific, yes, but those differences don't matter if they aren't requirements.
    - candu 11y ago
      Those differences definitely matter if people come to depend on them. This is really a debate between prescriptive and descriptive schools of specification ;)
- 11y ago

vxNsr 11y ago

Am I missing some sorta punchline? or are they shamelessly ripping off the bloomberg headline to grab more eyeballs? I guess it's because both magazines are in the finance space and Bloomberg made waves only a few months ago with their piece that I'm having trouble not seeing this as trying to ride on coat-tails. Edit: mediumdeviation makes a fair point, I didn't really think about the fact that economist explains is a regular column, I still think they coulda come up with a more creative title (How Programming Works, How Programmers Work, What is a Programmer, What Code Does, Java: More Than Just Coffee, Code: The Hitchhiker's Guide, etc) re: the newspaper thing: I get a weekly, bound, glossy set of papers that can only be described as a magazine, if they wanna be called a newspaper maybe they should look more like Barron's (please don't I hate that set up).

mediumdeviation 11y ago
How many other ways are there to title an article explaining, essentially, what is computer code? "The Economist Explains" is a regular column where the newspaper (not magazine, mind you, the Economist is very particular about that) explains a wide variety of issue, mostly current but not always, as in this case, and makes them accessible concisely to those not in the field. That Bloomberg published an in-depth report on the same issue a few months ago, and this short column appearing now is merely a coincidence, and suggesting otherwise is completely ridiculous.
- davelnewton 11y ago
  I'd be... surprised if it was "merely a coincidence". That's almost never how the publishing industry works. (And I do have some info that suggests otherwise, but as I can't source it, it's anecdotal... but strong.)

SimeVidas 11y ago

Baby, don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.

sanderjd 11y ago

> Worried that your job is in danger of being automated away by software? Learning to code could be a useful insurance policy. I often worry that we're setting ourselves up for major failure here. There is no fundamental principle that suggests most kinds of programming are any less susceptible to automation than any other kind of work. Especially the kinds of things that are taught in most "learn to code" programs – simple web applications – are increasingly commoditized or able to be built out of commodity pieces, and that trend will only increase. Another popular reason to learn to code is to do data analysis or procedural tasks for your line of business, but in the long run, those tasks are probably better served by more purpose-built tools that have more in common with spreadsheets than the types of things professional software developers do. I guess my point is that there seems to be a meme that extolls the virtues of "learning to code" as an end, rather than as a means to be more effective at something else. I'd rather see articles about what those somethings-else are, and how knowing how to program can augment them, but those seem fewer and further between.

outworlder 11y ago
> There is no fundamental principle that suggests most kinds of programming are any less susceptible to automation than any other kind of work Well, as a fundamental principle, there's the Halting Problem. The simplest programming tasks will be simplified to some extend or be commoditised. In much of the same way we can purchase website templates and website builders can get the trivial sites up and running with no knowledge. In the past, HTML was required knowledge to publish a blog, but not anymore. But there's a reason most professional applications are not developed with such tools. Given that, I expect the careers of programmers that aren't IDE-pilots are safe for the foreseeable future. Increasingly complex task will be, and already are, being automated. But so far, all that progress has only increased the programmer's leverage. > I guess my point is that there seems to be a meme that extolls the virtues of "learning to code" as an end, rather than as a means to be more effective at something else. I completely agree with that. Outside of IT, there are many areas that would benefit from some programming knowledge and are currently under-served.
- wuschel 11y ago