3 ms·

We already have c/c++ as low level bases, now zig/rust are coming for the throne, I really hope contenders dont keep spawning like rabbits. If everyone got behi

We already have c/c++ as low level bases, now zig/rust are coming for the throne, I really hope contenders dont keep spawning like rabbits. If everyone got behind a smaller # of initiatives the worlds codebase would be simpler going forward? I'm imaging some poor software engineer in 2065, having to maintain an enterprise legacy stack... levels of FORTRAN/COBOL->C->C++->ZIG->RUST->PERL->PYTHON.... all the way up....JS..etc..

kaibee 5y ago
> I'm imaging some poor software engineer in 2065, having to maintain an enterprise legacy stack... levels of FORTRAN/COBOL->C->C++->ZIG->RUST->PERL->PYTHON.... all the way up....JS..etc.. I have good news and bad news: That programmer will not know any of those languages, as they will just program in English and GPT-3000 will convert it into code.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The reason that we have programming languages at all is that English and all other natural languages are too ambiguous to be used for this purpose. GPT-3000 will have no problem understanding some interpretation of your English (or Spanish or Mandarin) "program", but will it be the right one? How long will it take to get GPT-3000 to understand what you mean when you can only talk to it in English (or Spanish or Mandarin) ?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Eventually maybe only the same amount of time it takes the average programmer to understand your meaning.
    - chubot 5y ago
      So like months and years? On every project I’ve worked on, the programmers conception of the requirements evolves until the minute they stop working on it. And they only understand the part they worked on, not the whole thing
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        The discussion is not about understanding "requirements". A piece of software is a set of instructions that tell a computer how to do something. We use languages like C, Python, Haskell and Lisp to describe what to do in ways that avoid as much ambiguity as possible. The question is: if you used a natural (human) language, how much confusion would (a) the putative GPT-3000 (b) another programmer (c) a compiler/interpreter incur when trying to understand your instructions?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      That might be true. But the comparison is not with another programmer. Rather, it's with the essentially instantaneous understanding that a compiler/interpreter has when you feed in a programming language.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  This has been attempted many times in the last century but never happened, I think it's quite safe to say that this also won't happen in the next century.
IggleSniggle 5y ago
While I would absolutely love to have that job, I’m afraid I’ll never get to do it. Language cross-compilers seem to keep getting better. It may be that case that one day, you will run a legacy program through a babelfish and get something understandable to you back out. Of course, the complexity might explode from there…or you might just not really notice it all that often. Anybody familiar with LLVM or WASM or heck even a language that can transpile to JavaScript can probably relate to this possibility. The thing that’s harder to fathom is going from low-level to high-level. High-level -> intermediary low-level -> high-level is fathomable though.
roca 5y ago
I don't want contenders to spawn like rabbits. I want the industry to coalesce around just a few contenders to maximise network effects so as to kill off C and C++ more effectively.
flohofwoe 5y ago
> I really hope contenders dont keep spawning like rabbits I do, because that would mean that more attention must be paid to make languages work together, instead of each language ecosystem becoming its own little island. Maintaining a project built from a dozen languages (where each language does one thing well) should be just as simple as maintaining a mono-language project.

kaibee 5y ago

> I'm imaging some poor software engineer in 2065, having to maintain an enterprise legacy stack... levels of FORTRAN/COBOL->C->C++->ZIG->RUST->PERL->PYTHON.... all the way up....JS..etc.. I have good news and bad news: That programmer will not know any of those languages, as they will just program in English and GPT-3000 will convert it into code.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
The reason that we have programming languages at all is that English and all other natural languages are too ambiguous to be used for this purpose. GPT-3000 will have no problem understanding some interpretation of your English (or Spanish or Mandarin) "program", but will it be the right one? How long will it take to get GPT-3000 to understand what you mean when you can only talk to it in English (or Spanish or Mandarin) ?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Eventually maybe only the same amount of time it takes the average programmer to understand your meaning.
  - chubot 5y ago
    So like months and years? On every project I’ve worked on, the programmers conception of the requirements evolves until the minute they stop working on it. And they only understand the part they worked on, not the whole thing
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      The discussion is not about understanding "requirements". A piece of software is a set of instructions that tell a computer how to do something. We use languages like C, Python, Haskell and Lisp to describe what to do in ways that avoid as much ambiguity as possible. The question is: if you used a natural (human) language, how much confusion would (a) the putative GPT-3000 (b) another programmer (c) a compiler/interpreter incur when trying to understand your instructions?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    That might be true. But the comparison is not with another programmer. Rather, it's with the essentially instantaneous understanding that a compiler/interpreter has when you feed in a programming language.
flohofwoe 5y ago
This has been attempted many times in the last century but never happened, I think it's quite safe to say that this also won't happen in the next century.

IggleSniggle 5y ago

While I would absolutely love to have that job, I’m afraid I’ll never get to do it. Language cross-compilers seem to keep getting better. It may be that case that one day, you will run a legacy program through a babelfish and get something understandable to you back out. Of course, the complexity might explode from there…or you might just not really notice it all that often. Anybody familiar with LLVM or WASM or heck even a language that can transpile to JavaScript can probably relate to this possibility. The thing that’s harder to fathom is going from low-level to high-level. High-level -> intermediary low-level -> high-level is fathomable though.

roca 5y ago

I don't want contenders to spawn like rabbits. I want the industry to coalesce around just a few contenders to maximise network effects so as to kill off C and C++ more effectively.

flohofwoe 5y ago

> I really hope contenders dont keep spawning like rabbits I do, because that would mean that more attention must be paid to make languages work together, instead of each language ecosystem becoming its own little island. Maintaining a project built from a dozen languages (where each language does one thing well) should be just as simple as maintaining a mono-language project.