5 ms·

> Just like Javascript made programming more accessible to a broader audience I think this is entirely cart before horse. What actually happened was the web ma

> Just like Javascript made programming more accessible to a broader audience I think this is entirely cart before horse. What actually happened was the web made programming relevant to a much broader audience and JavaScript is the language you use to program for the web, so everyone learnt that.

cambalache 7y ago
Correct, all the assumed authority of the author flew out of the window as I read that sentence.
- chupa-chups 7y ago
  Could you explain why you think this? Programming is 75-90% repetition of patterns. The remaining 10-15% are the difference between a simple translation of usual human language into a foreign language vs. developing algorithms and/or logic to solve a problem. If we can get rid of the non-algorithm, non-logic part we'd be better off, and this is what i read into this sentence.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    repetition of patterns is the easy part, so getting rid of the easy part and leaving the difficult part might not make much difference in the end. Especially as the easy part can be an access point to the more complicated.
    - chupa-chups 7y ago
      Still it takes easily 50% of the time available for actual coding, even using modern IDEs.
      - wolco 7y ago
        Use a framework and/or abstract your patterns.
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        And meetings take the other 50% of time available. I know what I want to get rid of.
  - msla 7y ago
    New learners are suspicious, if they're any good. Look at this snippet of Java: public static void main(String[] args) You have to put that exactly in every Java program. Why? What does it mean? Why can't I omit it? To answer all of those questions, you need to go into method visibility, the difference between static and instance methods (itself easily requiring the teacher to introduce the concept of 'state' and what OO is at a basic level), types and the notion of a "void" type, and odd historical baggage which prompts the JVM to look for 'main' as a special, magical name. You haven't even gotten to "Hello, world!" and you have to unpack at least a lecture's worth of knowledge into the poor sap's head. It's a lot easier to have a language where you type commands and the machine follows them. Even fundamentally bad languages, like GW-BASIC (my first language), have a hypnotic power over young programmers simply by virtue of that immediate response.
    - chupa-chups 7y ago
      This is what is said. So why do you appear to oppose? Programming today still means 85%-90% doing repetitive stuff. Tools could do away with this, freeing the developer/engineer to spend more time on solving actual problems. If you oppose to this, please state the reason why, since I'm probably fogged. To be more clear, I don't propose to make programming easier. I do propose to make so-called "programming" go away, to focus on the actual problem-solving part. "Programming" to me means mostly translating requirements into code (without having to deal with decomposing and recombining requirements, which is the real work).
      - msla 7y ago
        > Programming today still means 85%-90% doing repetitive stuff. But some languages have more than others, which is why they're bad teaching languages. That's my point. > To be more clear, I don't propose to make programming easier. I do propose to make so-called "programming" go away, to focus on the actual problem-solving part. "Programming" to me means mostly translating requirements into code (without having to deal with decomposing and recombining requirements, which is the real work). Translating requirements into code is programming. Reducing boilerplate isn't making programming go away.
    - 7y ago
- LameRubberDucky 7y ago
  All? A person can have an incorrect view while still maintaining other correct views.
  - loco5niner 7y ago
    True, but you tend to question their statements much more now.
icandoit 7y ago
I think you are right. Also anybody could right-click and "view source". (Imagine being able to do that in any Swing app in their peak, for contrast.) When pages were just a few hundred lines any page could be recreated with a web browser, ambition, and enough time. Those days are long gone, now, with huge transitive node dependencies, minification, and feature-combinatorial-explosion. Like a sandboxed document-centric qbasic.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  When I was a kid that was very much a hobby! I’d save whole websites and play with their code (back then that meant html2/3 and early css and Javascript, but still). It was enticing after playing with terminal views for years before that. Kids like colourful things, what can I say.
- jkestner 7y ago
  Yeah, so many of us got into the trade that way, and in turn developed it into what it became. I’m not proud of my animated GIF phase. Since websites are inscrutable and often irrelevant to the cutting edge internet experience now, it makes me wonder what welcoming medium the kids are going to find that solidifies it as the next creative platform that industries are built on.
- chrismcb 7y ago
  I used to do that in the c64. Had a freeze cartridge. Click the button and jump into the monitor and cute the assembly language.... Same difference
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
a13n 7y ago
To some extent it was both. The web made programming relevant to a much broader audience, and JS is much more approachable than other popular languages from that time (eg C++).
- blowski 7y ago
  JS appeared at the same time as PHP and Ruby. Python was 4 years old when JavaScript was first released. All those languages are about the same level of complexity.
- TheEndless 7y ago
  Now the latest boom if JS is its use in full stack applications with Node.js One language, everywhere. Also supersets like TypeScript for validation and specificity.
zweep 7y ago
It's JQuery and its successors that made Javascript more accessible to a broad audience. If people still had to handcode Javascript it wouldn't be nearly as widespread.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rhizome 7y ago
  It was ActionScript (Flash) what did it.

cambalache 7y ago

Correct, all the assumed authority of the author flew out of the window as I read that sentence.

chupa-chups 7y ago
Could you explain why you think this? Programming is 75-90% repetition of patterns. The remaining 10-15% are the difference between a simple translation of usual human language into a foreign language vs. developing algorithms and/or logic to solve a problem. If we can get rid of the non-algorithm, non-logic part we'd be better off, and this is what i read into this sentence.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  repetition of patterns is the easy part, so getting rid of the easy part and leaving the difficult part might not make much difference in the end. Especially as the easy part can be an access point to the more complicated.
  - chupa-chups 7y ago
    Still it takes easily 50% of the time available for actual coding, even using modern IDEs.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Use a framework and/or abstract your patterns.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      And meetings take the other 50% of time available. I know what I want to get rid of.
- msla 7y ago
  New learners are suspicious, if they're any good. Look at this snippet of Java: public static void main(String[] args) You have to put that exactly in every Java program. Why? What does it mean? Why can't I omit it? To answer all of those questions, you need to go into method visibility, the difference between static and instance methods (itself easily requiring the teacher to introduce the concept of 'state' and what OO is at a basic level), types and the notion of a "void" type, and odd historical baggage which prompts the JVM to look for 'main' as a special, magical name. You haven't even gotten to "Hello, world!" and you have to unpack at least a lecture's worth of knowledge into the poor sap's head. It's a lot easier to have a language where you type commands and the machine follows them. Even fundamentally bad languages, like GW-BASIC (my first language), have a hypnotic power over young programmers simply by virtue of that immediate response.
  - chupa-chups 7y ago
    This is what is said. So why do you appear to oppose? Programming today still means 85%-90% doing repetitive stuff. Tools could do away with this, freeing the developer/engineer to spend more time on solving actual problems. If you oppose to this, please state the reason why, since I'm probably fogged. To be more clear, I don't propose to make programming easier. I do propose to make so-called "programming" go away, to focus on the actual problem-solving part. "Programming" to me means mostly translating requirements into code (without having to deal with decomposing and recombining requirements, which is the real work).
    - msla 7y ago
      > Programming today still means 85%-90% doing repetitive stuff. But some languages have more than others, which is why they're bad teaching languages. That's my point. > To be more clear, I don't propose to make programming easier. I do propose to make so-called "programming" go away, to focus on the actual problem-solving part. "Programming" to me means mostly translating requirements into code (without having to deal with decomposing and recombining requirements, which is the real work). Translating requirements into code is programming. Reducing boilerplate isn't making programming go away.
  - 7y ago
LameRubberDucky 7y ago
All? A person can have an incorrect view while still maintaining other correct views.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  True, but you tend to question their statements much more now.

icandoit 7y ago

I think you are right. Also anybody could right-click and "view source". (Imagine being able to do that in any Swing app in their peak, for contrast.) When pages were just a few hundred lines any page could be recreated with a web browser, ambition, and enough time. Those days are long gone, now, with huge transitive node dependencies, minification, and feature-combinatorial-explosion. Like a sandboxed document-centric qbasic.

52-6F-62 7y ago
When I was a kid that was very much a hobby! I’d save whole websites and play with their code (back then that meant html2/3 and early css and Javascript, but still). It was enticing after playing with terminal views for years before that. Kids like colourful things, what can I say.
jkestner 7y ago
Yeah, so many of us got into the trade that way, and in turn developed it into what it became. I’m not proud of my animated GIF phase. Since websites are inscrutable and often irrelevant to the cutting edge internet experience now, it makes me wonder what welcoming medium the kids are going to find that solidifies it as the next creative platform that industries are built on.
chrismcb 7y ago
I used to do that in the c64. Had a freeze cartridge. Click the button and jump into the monitor and cute the assembly language.... Same difference

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

a13n 7y ago

To some extent it was both. The web made programming relevant to a much broader audience, and JS is much more approachable than other popular languages from that time (eg C++).

blowski 7y ago
JS appeared at the same time as PHP and Ruby. Python was 4 years old when JavaScript was first released. All those languages are about the same level of complexity.
TheEndless 7y ago
Now the latest boom if JS is its use in full stack applications with Node.js One language, everywhere. Also supersets like TypeScript for validation and specificity.

zweep 7y ago

It's JQuery and its successors that made Javascript more accessible to a broad audience. If people still had to handcode Javascript it wouldn't be nearly as widespread.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 7y ago
It was ActionScript (Flash) what did it.