3 ms·

When I was a kid, at the beginning of the 00s, and I was beginning to experiment with computers, I imagined the future of computing to be about reducing the com

When I was a kid, at the beginning of the 00s, and I was beginning to experiment with computers, I imagined the future of computing to be about reducing the complexity of software development as much as possible. I now realize that I dreamt of something exactly like HyperCards. A world where machines could be programmed using something resembling natural language and where anyone could create and share software. At the time, the closest thing I could find was a Word document where I dragged and dropped buttons to create a pseudo UI and then imagine that it worked. I wish I had access to something like this. I believe that by not having a tool like this, we are taking away from the majority of the population, and in particular the young, the possibility of shaping computers for their own needs. A decision has been taken: the user has to be a passive consumer. It's a mistake and I am really sad about it. It feels, to me, as if there was a decision, intentional or not, of keeping the creation of software as a privilege of a few and not a right of everyone.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> It feels, to me, as if there was a decision, intentional or not, of keeping the creation of software as a privilege of a few and not a right of everyone. It feels that way because that's exactly how it is. If users are creating their own tools and forging their own path it becomes much harder to sell them things and developers aren't in nearly as much demand either. So the groups in the best position to make tools that empower the user are disincentivised to do so. Theoretically, FOSS would take care of this, right? Only, the people making those tools are quite often also professional developers and so have pretty much the same disincentive. They're ok with making other developers' lives easier, but users? Better remove a few more features from Nautilus lest they get the idea they own their own computer.
- scroot 7y ago
  It takes a lot of brains, time, money, failure, and just plain screwing around to come up with something like Hypercard or even the earliest personal computing systems. FOSS doesn't allow the time and money part, which is why they are stuck in making "open" tools for advanced teletype emulation. It is not a coincidence that Atkinson made this as an Apple fellow, where he had resources to work on whatever he wanted and could make whatever demands he wanted (and likewise not surprising that Apple could never make HC "profitable")
brazzy 7y ago
> A world where machines could be programmed using something resembling natural language and where anyone could create and share software. This is a silly pipe dream almost as old as computing, which reappears every couple of years in a new guise. When COBOL came out, it was promoted with exactly that promise, and there were people who seriously claimed that within a few years there would be no more professional programmers. More recent incarnations of the pipe dream were "fifth-generation programming languages" and "model-driven development". In reality, what keeps "the creation of software as a privilege of a few" is not a lack of the right tool, but the lack of the mindset of producing unambiguous, complete instructions and developing your requirements to a state where it's possible to give such instructions, and facing the many mistakes you end up making on the way. That is actually something very difficult to do, and which Average Joe will never learn, no matter what tools you give him.
- tabtab 7y ago
  A more practical goal is to program in a language or API close to the domain.
tabtab 7y ago
Re: I imagined the future of computing to be about reducing the complexity of software development as much as possible. I've seen the opposite. While we have more choice, all that choice is not been managed well. I now takes much more work to get the same thing. Part of it is that Web standards are lousy for CRUD, and second people have an urge (fear?) to chase fads or be left behind. Simplicity is third fiddle to having the latest.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> It feels, to me, as if there was a decision, intentional or not, of keeping the creation of software as a privilege of a few and not a right of everyone. It feels that way because that's exactly how it is. If users are creating their own tools and forging their own path it becomes much harder to sell them things and developers aren't in nearly as much demand either. So the groups in the best position to make tools that empower the user are disincentivised to do so. Theoretically, FOSS would take care of this, right? Only, the people making those tools are quite often also professional developers and so have pretty much the same disincentive. They're ok with making other developers' lives easier, but users? Better remove a few more features from Nautilus lest they get the idea they own their own computer.

scroot 7y ago
It takes a lot of brains, time, money, failure, and just plain screwing around to come up with something like Hypercard or even the earliest personal computing systems. FOSS doesn't allow the time and money part, which is why they are stuck in making "open" tools for advanced teletype emulation. It is not a coincidence that Atkinson made this as an Apple fellow, where he had resources to work on whatever he wanted and could make whatever demands he wanted (and likewise not surprising that Apple could never make HC "profitable")

brazzy 7y ago

> A world where machines could be programmed using something resembling natural language and where anyone could create and share software. This is a silly pipe dream almost as old as computing, which reappears every couple of years in a new guise. When COBOL came out, it was promoted with exactly that promise, and there were people who seriously claimed that within a few years there would be no more professional programmers. More recent incarnations of the pipe dream were "fifth-generation programming languages" and "model-driven development". In reality, what keeps "the creation of software as a privilege of a few" is not a lack of the right tool, but the lack of the mindset of producing unambiguous, complete instructions and developing your requirements to a state where it's possible to give such instructions, and facing the many mistakes you end up making on the way. That is actually something very difficult to do, and which Average Joe will never learn, no matter what tools you give him.

tabtab 7y ago
A more practical goal is to program in a language or API close to the domain.

tabtab 7y ago

Re: I imagined the future of computing to be about reducing the complexity of software development as much as possible. I've seen the opposite. While we have more choice, all that choice is not been managed well. I now takes much more work to get the same thing. Part of it is that Web standards are lousy for CRUD, and second people have an urge (fear?) to chase fads or be left behind. Simplicity is third fiddle to having the latest.