4 ms·

I wonder what I will be saying to people in twenty years time that will include the phrase: 'it took 10 minutes or so kids'? "We used to have to write our own

I wonder what I will be saying to people in twenty years time that will include the phrase: 'it took 10 minutes or so kids'? "We used to have to write our own programs, like actually use buttons to type characters. It took a year or so kids."

JustSomeNobody 9y ago
The keyboard is an efficient way of getting a program from one's head to the computer, so I don't see that changing.
- onion2k 9y ago
  The inefficiency lies is in translating the business requirements of an application to something the computer understands via your brain and code syntax. There are plenty of ways that process can be optimised.
  - pjmorris 9y ago
    They've been optimizing that process since the 1950's. My hunch is that until they've built something sufficiently autonomous to accept blame when something is broken, humans will still be coding.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    Until you also get a computer to write the business requirements, they will remain so nebulous that ONLY a human can translate them.
- JadeNB 9y ago
  > The keyboard is an efficient way of getting a program from one's head to the computer, so I don't see that changing. This seems an awful lot like saying, in (let's say) the 18th century, "the horse is an efficient way of getting from one place to another, so I don't see that changing." The keyboard seems efficient now, but it, or, to be certain, some current and apparently perfectly satisfactory technology, certainly won't do so after the next big innovation.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    I guess I'm not holding my breath for this "next big innovation". People will be programming computers for a very long time to come and they will, for the most part, be using a keyboard to do it.
    - JadeNB 9y ago
      "Predicting is hard, especially the future" (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict). I'm definitely not suggesting holding your breath; it would be foolish to say "keyboard-less programming is just around the corner, so don't bother with your keyboard!" On the other hand, a confident prediction like: > People will be programming computers for a very long time to come and they will, for the most part, be using a keyboard to do it. (the keyboard part, at least) seems to be a sure route to some future "640K should be enough memory for anyone."
      - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
        > "Predicting is hard, especially the future" (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict). Indeed it is! We are all supposed to be living in a post PC world where everything we do, programming included, will be done on a tablet! > (the keyboard part, at least) seems to be a sure route to some future "640K should be enough memory for anyone." Heh. Ok. But is this the same thing really? I mean, how many forms of input are there? We've tried the obvious ones and the keyboard just sticks with us.
        JadeNB 9y ago
        > Heh. Ok. But is this the same thing really? I mean, how many forms of input are there? We've tried the obvious ones and the keyboard just sticks with us. I guess it's not the same thing in that it's at least obvious what one could do instead of a 640 KB limit (just install more memory), but I still think there might be some life to the analogy. I agree with you that there's no obvious substitute for the keyboard, but that to me says only that it is a local maximum—with a potential further global maximum to be discovered, probably not by obvious changes, and necessarily not by perturbations to what we have already—which might (or, I'll certainly grant, might not) be bettered.
mixmastamyk 9y ago
Well, in the Mythical Man-month, Brooks describes the difference between accidental (later clarified as incidental) and essential complexity. In other words, computers getting easier to use doesn't affect the complexity of the aforementioned "business requirements" or the kinds of research problems we attempt to tackle, which are only getting harder. But yeah, ten minutes to load one program from tape... that was a productivity killer.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

The keyboard is an efficient way of getting a program from one's head to the computer, so I don't see that changing.

onion2k 9y ago
The inefficiency lies is in translating the business requirements of an application to something the computer understands via your brain and code syntax. There are plenty of ways that process can be optimised.
- pjmorris 9y ago
  They've been optimizing that process since the 1950's. My hunch is that until they've built something sufficiently autonomous to accept blame when something is broken, humans will still be coding.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  Until you also get a computer to write the business requirements, they will remain so nebulous that ONLY a human can translate them.
JadeNB 9y ago
> The keyboard is an efficient way of getting a program from one's head to the computer, so I don't see that changing. This seems an awful lot like saying, in (let's say) the 18th century, "the horse is an efficient way of getting from one place to another, so I don't see that changing." The keyboard seems efficient now, but it, or, to be certain, some current and apparently perfectly satisfactory technology, certainly won't do so after the next big innovation.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  I guess I'm not holding my breath for this "next big innovation". People will be programming computers for a very long time to come and they will, for the most part, be using a keyboard to do it.
  - JadeNB 9y ago
    "Predicting is hard, especially the future" (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict). I'm definitely not suggesting holding your breath; it would be foolish to say "keyboard-less programming is just around the corner, so don't bother with your keyboard!" On the other hand, a confident prediction like: > People will be programming computers for a very long time to come and they will, for the most part, be using a keyboard to do it. (the keyboard part, at least) seems to be a sure route to some future "640K should be enough memory for anyone."
    - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
      > "Predicting is hard, especially the future" (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict). Indeed it is! We are all supposed to be living in a post PC world where everything we do, programming included, will be done on a tablet! > (the keyboard part, at least) seems to be a sure route to some future "640K should be enough memory for anyone." Heh. Ok. But is this the same thing really? I mean, how many forms of input are there? We've tried the obvious ones and the keyboard just sticks with us.
      - JadeNB 9y ago
        > Heh. Ok. But is this the same thing really? I mean, how many forms of input are there? We've tried the obvious ones and the keyboard just sticks with us. I guess it's not the same thing in that it's at least obvious what one could do instead of a 640 KB limit (just install more memory), but I still think there might be some life to the analogy. I agree with you that there's no obvious substitute for the keyboard, but that to me says only that it is a local maximum—with a potential further global maximum to be discovered, probably not by obvious changes, and necessarily not by perturbations to what we have already—which might (or, I'll certainly grant, might not) be bettered.

mixmastamyk 9y ago

Well, in the Mythical Man-month, Brooks describes the difference between accidental (later clarified as incidental) and essential complexity. In other words, computers getting easier to use doesn't affect the complexity of the aforementioned "business requirements" or the kinds of research problems we attempt to tackle, which are only getting harder. But yeah, ten minutes to load one program from tape... that was a productivity killer.