3 ms·
For sure without the text representation, or manual code aspect a language would ultimately fail. I feel that languages that seek to "simplify" often oversimpl
by indigo0086 9y ago
For sure without the text representation, or manual code aspect a language would ultimately fail. I feel that languages that seek to "simplify" often oversimplify and leave those that require more granularity (most programmers) not to buy in. These languages can definitely offer a new paradigm on top of existing languages but it requires some fine control to get mind-share and ultimately take off. I'd say the real test of this, at least aligned with how I see it's future, is recruit not developers but non-devs and see how productive they can be in it, given they have a nice library of components to work from.
- stormbrew 9y agoI fundamentally despise this concept of 'non-devs'. There's just a cyclical definition of non-devs as people who use non-dev tools and vice versa. It's extremely common to dismiss tools used by certain classes of people as non-programmer tools because of who's using them. Look at Excel, which is basically a visual programming language that probably more people know how to program in than know C. But because your boss or your project manager or your sales rep uses it it gets dismissed. Never mind that unlike these things that crop up every now and then people get real work done by programming their computer with it.
- tentaTherapist 9y agoExcel's programmability is vastly underrated for some reason. It's easily one of the most high-level and successful languages ever, fulfilling a wide variety of roles for countless people, so simple that a child could use it, and so flexible that your boss probably does, too.
- mch82 9y agoThis got me wondering if the designers of the circuits that run software view textual programs as an oversimplification...