9 ms·

Sure, we agree the code is not the important thing, but that's a very oblique point. Where I disagree is that "removing the code" will help someone gain better

Sure, we agree the code is not the important thing, but that's a very oblique point. Where I disagree is that "removing the code" will help someone gain better understanding. It might help them dip their feet in and get at the core of what's important (hence MIT using scheme for its intro CS class for 30 years). However as soon as someone passes the beginner phase, the difficult thing is expressing the ideas succinctly and unambiguously. That's exactly what programming languages do. A good analogy might be mathematics notation. You can explain basic math without any notation, but as soon as you get to more complex stuff you need the notation to help you reason about it and encapsulate the ideas succinctly. Similarly, graphical programming environments can do a ton of useful stuff (HyperCard is what got me into programming at the age of 10), but they will always always hit a wall (until true human-level AI anyway). The author definitely doesn't get that part.

mikekchar 10y ago
I agree with you. Programming languages are dramatically simpler than human languages. Anyone can learn the syntax and grammar for a programming language in a few months (at the very worst). Not only that, but they reduce the amount of expression possible so that you have to be very precise in your descriptions. While beginners find this difficult to deal with, it's actually a massive help because there are only a few ways to express something and the compiler/interpreter often tells you when you get it wrong. Again, compare that to a human language where you have a huge amount of expression available to you and it is often nearly impossible to realise if you are being precise enough to describe the problem/solution well. A good way to demonstrate this is simply to try to write a computer program in your native human language, without restricting yourself to pseudo code. It's pretty easy to leave out important details and to end up with a huge mess of incomprehensible garbage. There are many people who think that a visual language or some other abstraction will simplify the problem of coding. I really don't think so. While things like diagrams are great for helping people comprehend something, they are absolutely terrible for expressing something. Just look at how difficult it is to draw really good diagrams. Consider the fact that we have had cook books for hundreds of years, but almost none of them are described solely with diagrams. Words are how humans prefer to communicate. I think we often fall into the same trap with programming languages or frameworks. We say, "Look how easy it is to do this trivial thing. It's 100 times easier to do trivial things with this framework than without it". We are completely blind to the fact that the framework makes it 100 times harder to do ordinary things and 1000 times harder to do complex things.
ridgeguy 10y ago
I think the author was saying something different, with which I agree. There's a POV from which code is the details needed to get something done, and the less, the better. In my life, the less visible the code task has become, the more power I've gained. A couple of examples: When word processors stopped needing to be told stuff like /b at the beginning and end of words I wanted boldfaced, it got better. I found the whole WYSIWYG thing enormously helpful. The portion of time I devoted to typography was released for improving content. LabView made it possible for me to assemble data acquisition and control systems with drag/drop icons and drawing connections instead of coding a PID module and then a gain module and then a Kalman filter function and ... you get the idea. Less code to write, more stuff done. By analogy: Today, I turn a dial to make a fire to cook my dinner. I turn a valve to get water. I drive a car to go places. Yes, I've rubbed sticks together, I've winched a bucket up from a well, and I maintained a horse for mobility when I was a kid. I'm pleased and empowered by no longer needing those skills. In the same way, I look forward to the disappearance of coding as a prerequisite to creation. I'm immensely grateful to the people whose coding is making that happen.
- dasil003 10y ago
  This is a strawman. Coding has never been a prerequisite to creation. People were creative forever, and then computers came along and created new avenues for creativity. The vast majority of which is done with applications, and applications have improved by leaps and bounds every decade. Only a very tiny portion of creative work requires actual programming, like demo scene programmers. Even video games and Pixar movies have far more artists then programmers. It's true that more and more programmers are required to extend and maintain the software, but the growth of the end-user base has far outpaced the programmers. The majority of programmers are implementing business logic of which they have minimal high-level creative input. The things we can do with computers without code has only increased. Pontificating on how it would be better if we didn't have to write code is like someone who once used a circular saw pondering why can't artisanal wood carving also be done with simple straight-forward, easy-to-use tools instead of difficult-to-use hand tools. I mean its crazy how often we hear this refrain about coding as opposed to other professions. No one asks why can't we have a gadget to perform an appendectomy at home instead of paying a surgeon thousands of dollars, but for some reason people think that coding is somehow unnecessary magic which could be done away with by a bit of clever rethinking. But code is not some rube goldberg device designed to obfuscate and impress; code is a medium, like a blank canvas, or a sheet of typing paper, the only difference is it can control physical things. It is not one concrete thing with a specific purpose which can be optimized like a word processor, or a stove, or a faucet or a car. Less code doesn't mean a simpler world, it just means less of what code can do.

mikekchar 10y ago

I agree with you. Programming languages are dramatically simpler than human languages. Anyone can learn the syntax and grammar for a programming language in a few months (at the very worst). Not only that, but they reduce the amount of expression possible so that you have to be very precise in your descriptions. While beginners find this difficult to deal with, it's actually a massive help because there are only a few ways to express something and the compiler/interpreter often tells you when you get it wrong. Again, compare that to a human language where you have a huge amount of expression available to you and it is often nearly impossible to realise if you are being precise enough to describe the problem/solution well. A good way to demonstrate this is simply to try to write a computer program in your native human language, without restricting yourself to pseudo code. It's pretty easy to leave out important details and to end up with a huge mess of incomprehensible garbage. There are many people who think that a visual language or some other abstraction will simplify the problem of coding. I really don't think so. While things like diagrams are great for helping people comprehend something, they are absolutely terrible for expressing something. Just look at how difficult it is to draw really good diagrams. Consider the fact that we have had cook books for hundreds of years, but almost none of them are described solely with diagrams. Words are how humans prefer to communicate. I think we often fall into the same trap with programming languages or frameworks. We say, "Look how easy it is to do this trivial thing. It's 100 times easier to do trivial things with this framework than without it". We are completely blind to the fact that the framework makes it 100 times harder to do ordinary things and 1000 times harder to do complex things.

ridgeguy 10y ago

I think the author was saying something different, with which I agree. There's a POV from which code is the details needed to get something done, and the less, the better. In my life, the less visible the code task has become, the more power I've gained. A couple of examples: When word processors stopped needing to be told stuff like /b at the beginning and end of words I wanted boldfaced, it got better. I found the whole WYSIWYG thing enormously helpful. The portion of time I devoted to typography was released for improving content. LabView made it possible for me to assemble data acquisition and control systems with drag/drop icons and drawing connections instead of coding a PID module and then a gain module and then a Kalman filter function and ... you get the idea. Less code to write, more stuff done. By analogy: Today, I turn a dial to make a fire to cook my dinner. I turn a valve to get water. I drive a car to go places. Yes, I've rubbed sticks together, I've winched a bucket up from a well, and I maintained a horse for mobility when I was a kid. I'm pleased and empowered by no longer needing those skills. In the same way, I look forward to the disappearance of coding as a prerequisite to creation. I'm immensely grateful to the people whose coding is making that happen.

dasil003 10y ago
This is a strawman. Coding has never been a prerequisite to creation. People were creative forever, and then computers came along and created new avenues for creativity. The vast majority of which is done with applications, and applications have improved by leaps and bounds every decade. Only a very tiny portion of creative work requires actual programming, like demo scene programmers. Even video games and Pixar movies have far more artists then programmers. It's true that more and more programmers are required to extend and maintain the software, but the growth of the end-user base has far outpaced the programmers. The majority of programmers are implementing business logic of which they have minimal high-level creative input. The things we can do with computers without code has only increased. Pontificating on how it would be better if we didn't have to write code is like someone who once used a circular saw pondering why can't artisanal wood carving also be done with simple straight-forward, easy-to-use tools instead of difficult-to-use hand tools. I mean its crazy how often we hear this refrain about coding as opposed to other professions. No one asks why can't we have a gadget to perform an appendectomy at home instead of paying a surgeon thousands of dollars, but for some reason people think that coding is somehow unnecessary magic which could be done away with by a bit of clever rethinking. But code is not some rube goldberg device designed to obfuscate and impress; code is a medium, like a blank canvas, or a sheet of typing paper, the only difference is it can control physical things. It is not one concrete thing with a specific purpose which can be optimized like a word processor, or a stove, or a faucet or a car. Less code doesn't mean a simpler world, it just means less of what code can do.