4 ms·
>.. there are many things that are complex and can't be made simpler without destroying the functionality of the program. This is because we haven't figured ou
by eikenberry 9y ago
>.. there are many things that are complex and can't be made simpler without destroying the functionality of the program.
This is because we haven't figured out how to make them simple yet. I believe all problems can be made simple, once we come up with the proper system. Maybe we don't have the correct abstractions yet or just haven't figured out the best data layout. We've only been collectively programming for a few years now I think we have plenty of room left to advance the field. I'm not ready to just throw in the towel and say impossible.
- spaceseaman 9y agoAgreed. Our field is still incredibly young, speaking as if we've tried everything that can be tried sounds a lot like when physicists were figuring out relativity. Many believed that the problems were simply unsolvable, that all of physics had been figured out in the late 1800s. Obviously they were wrong, and I think many of today's computer scientists will be wrong as well. Our field has a long way to go before it matures, in the meantime we need to find better abstractions. Claiming that it's "all a cycle" is incredibly short sighted considering the time-scale.
- goatlover 9y agoHave architects figured out how to make designing any sort of building and bridge simple? Maybe with powerful AI and Holodeck-like programs we can make it simple for humans to tell the computer to do anything they want easily, but short of that, I'm not seeing why every program would be simple to build. However, the more powerful your tools, the more complex buildings and programs you're able to create. Programming hasn't necessarily gotten easier with more powerful abstractions, rather we create more complex programs now.