5 ms·

This is such an eerie read for me. I've been working alone on a project that I've been calling "intentional programming" -- the idea being that a user/programm

by _Nat_ 8y ago

This is such an eerie read for me. I've been working alone on a project that I've been calling "intentional programming" -- the idea being that a user/programmer specifies what they want, then the system handles mapping it to the primitive-level, through what can be described as a tower of interpreters. Obviously, it has to be a collapsible tower, or the whole thing's just a crazy heavy-weight abstraction that'd make even simple calculations painfully expensive. There're a lot of problems with the design presented in the paper that they'd need to solve yet to catch up to where I'm at. But, for something that's been my life's work so far, it's truly strange to read a significant chunk of it casually posted online. It does leave me with a nagging question, though. So far as I can tell, the system that I'm making will broadly obsolete other programming regimes; it basically automates the process of mapping concept-to-code, in a provably optimal, reproducible way. So, I suspect that what I'm making will fully disrupt how we do programming entirely. That said, the paper's "Related Work" section shows that ideas in this direction have long-existed, for decades at least. So, my question would be, why hasn't this replaced everything yet? Like, what haven't we replaced/generalized compilers with/to partial-evaluators?

WaxProlix 8y ago
Not super related but it's worth noting that Charles Simonyi sort of pioneered something called 'intentional programming' [1] a good while ago, going so far as to create the Intentional Software Company to promote the practice. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming
- _Nat_ 7y ago
  I think that's where I first heard the term "intentional" in this usage! It fit exactly what I was doing, so I adopted it as a name. I did a little bit of research on their prior work, but I get the feeling that they fell into a bunch of traps. For example, they seem to refer to "compiling" programs, which is enough of a conceptual mistake as to sink their project from the start. Still, the overall idea that the focus should be on intent, rather than how that intent is implemented, seems apt.
  - WaxProlix 7y ago
    If you look at any of their products (might be hard to do actually) the focus was metaprogramming as a paradigm and building tools to create basically DSLs for various domains which allowed more or less what you're talking about, all of which were interpreted to a sort of universal meta-language and all of which could be projected from that representation into any of its other forms. Pretty cool stuff, or at least it had the potential to be.
sundbry 7y ago
The reason we haven't replaced human-engineered computer programs with "HAL do this for me" instructions is because the devil is always in the details...
- _Nat_ 7y ago
  Hah, true. It's definitely been a heck of a lot more than I'd have guessed at first. Still, I approached this whole thing more incrementally; I never tried to say, "HAL, do this for me", but rather I just tried to make a framework that made programming easier. For example, it's easier to do mathematical programming if you put in an abstract numeric class, more like what Mathematica uses than primitive numerics that the CPU uses. It's yet easier if you shift the focus from value-oriented logic to expression-oriented logic. But then that's all heavy-weight stuff; you're stuck with doing lots of expensive computations even when all you want to calculate is "1+1". So, the framework's got to be able to reduce itself to something more optimal. But then there's a question of how to optimize a program. You can't stop too soon, or else your compiled result won't be fully optimal. But if you try to optimize all the way, then whenever you compile something like a numeric simulation, e.g. var result = doHugeMathProblem(); Print(result); , it'd always optimize to something like Print(7); // since result == 7 , as the compiler would've had to do all of the work. So, obviously, we have to ditch "compiling" and move to a generalization. But then, if you mix primitive-computation with abstract-computation, how do you do that optimally? For example, when do you stop trying to find a more clever symbolic solution to a system of equations and switch to trying to solve it numerically? And the chain of problems just keeps going on-and-on like that. Still, it seems like it'd have been a mistake for someone to say, "HAL, do this for me". HAL might be at the end of the road, but acknowledging that and then trying to jump right to it feels like plotting a road trip by figuring out the direction that the destination is in, then attempting to drive straight to it, driving through whatever's in the way rather than on roads out of the silly idea that the path ought to the destination ought to be straight. Which, _tl;dr_, is to say that I understand why everyone who tried to make HAL may've failed, but what confuses me is why people didn't have more success pushing development efforts like that in the linked PDF. Those would've led to HAL, if pursued hard enough.
dgreensp 7y ago
Can you summarize the insights you have had beyond what the paper covers? Sounds fascinating. I don’t know why people aren’t more actively pursuing this stuff, either.

by _Nat_ 8y ago

WaxProlix 8y ago

Not super related but it's worth noting that Charles Simonyi sort of pioneered something called 'intentional programming' [1] a good while ago, going so far as to create the Intentional Software Company to promote the practice. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming

_Nat_ 7y ago
I think that's where I first heard the term "intentional" in this usage! It fit exactly what I was doing, so I adopted it as a name. I did a little bit of research on their prior work, but I get the feeling that they fell into a bunch of traps. For example, they seem to refer to "compiling" programs, which is enough of a conceptual mistake as to sink their project from the start. Still, the overall idea that the focus should be on intent, rather than how that intent is implemented, seems apt.
- WaxProlix 7y ago
  If you look at any of their products (might be hard to do actually) the focus was metaprogramming as a paradigm and building tools to create basically DSLs for various domains which allowed more or less what you're talking about, all of which were interpreted to a sort of universal meta-language and all of which could be projected from that representation into any of its other forms. Pretty cool stuff, or at least it had the potential to be.

sundbry 7y ago

The reason we haven't replaced human-engineered computer programs with "HAL do this for me" instructions is because the devil is always in the details...

_Nat_ 7y ago
Hah, true. It's definitely been a heck of a lot more than I'd have guessed at first. Still, I approached this whole thing more incrementally; I never tried to say, "HAL, do this for me", but rather I just tried to make a framework that made programming easier. For example, it's easier to do mathematical programming if you put in an abstract numeric class, more like what Mathematica uses than primitive numerics that the CPU uses. It's yet easier if you shift the focus from value-oriented logic to expression-oriented logic. But then that's all heavy-weight stuff; you're stuck with doing lots of expensive computations even when all you want to calculate is "1+1". So, the framework's got to be able to reduce itself to something more optimal. But then there's a question of how to optimize a program. You can't stop too soon, or else your compiled result won't be fully optimal. But if you try to optimize all the way, then whenever you compile something like a numeric simulation, e.g. var result = doHugeMathProblem(); Print(result); , it'd always optimize to something like Print(7); // since result == 7 , as the compiler would've had to do all of the work. So, obviously, we have to ditch "compiling" and move to a generalization. But then, if you mix primitive-computation with abstract-computation, how do you do that optimally? For example, when do you stop trying to find a more clever symbolic solution to a system of equations and switch to trying to solve it numerically? And the chain of problems just keeps going on-and-on like that. Still, it seems like it'd have been a mistake for someone to say, "HAL, do this for me". HAL might be at the end of the road, but acknowledging that and then trying to jump right to it feels like plotting a road trip by figuring out the direction that the destination is in, then attempting to drive straight to it, driving through whatever's in the way rather than on roads out of the silly idea that the path ought to the destination ought to be straight. Which, _tl;dr_, is to say that I understand why everyone who tried to make HAL may've failed, but what confuses me is why people didn't have more success pushing development efforts like that in the linked PDF. Those would've led to HAL, if pursued hard enough.

dgreensp 7y ago

Can you summarize the insights you have had beyond what the paper covers? Sounds fascinating. I don’t know why people aren’t more actively pursuing this stuff, either.