4 ms·

"The more I use graphical interfaces (or anything that does not operate on text streams - commandline curses programs included), the more I am struck by how pro

"The more I use graphical interfaces (or anything that does not operate on text streams - commandline curses programs included), the more I am struck by how profound the loss of composability is". Exactly this! You've hit on the nail on the head here. Computing devices are inherently non-composable. Mostly because we, as software developers, have failed to create frameworks that are fully composable. The real problem is we still need to program.

bad_user 15y ago
Mostly because we, as software developers, have failed to create frameworks that are fully composable. This is MBA-talk. Big companies would like nothing more than for programming to become something unskilled workers can do. I would like that too, but from a different perspective. Programming is not really like assembling Lego blocks. And if you pick any other industry, taking a close look at how new developments are made, you'll find that sharing in software development is a lot more common and a lot easier. After all, when building new software, you don't have to write your own OS, your own compiler, your own debugger, your own libraries built on top, or even your own domain-specific framework. Well, unless you have the not-invented-here syndrome. And what does "fully composable" mean anyway? The real problem is we still need to program. Well, for specifications to get written, you still need to write. For designing a user interface, you still need to draw. For doing architecture, you still need to think.
- cageface 15y ago
  I still haven't seen a persuasive attempt to make graphical interfaces truly composable. Composing streams of characters is child's play conceptually compared to any kind of meaningful visual composibility. Just look at the api for a typical button widget in your framework of choice. How on earth are you going to expose this in a user-friendly way to the non-geek?
- ericHosick 15y ago
  Yes. My bad. I should have said "The real problem is we still need to code." I do agree with you that we will always need to design interfaces, engineer solutions, gather requirements, understand the systems being developed, etc. But we should not and will not need to code the solution. What does "fully composable" mean? A framework/architecture that is fully composable would be one that allows you to implement any solvable system without writing code. As for the "MBA-talk" stuff... It is possible to create frameworks that are fully composable. If you would like, I can chat with you about such things outside of HN.

bad_user 15y ago

Mostly because we, as software developers, have failed to create frameworks that are fully composable. This is MBA-talk. Big companies would like nothing more than for programming to become something unskilled workers can do. I would like that too, but from a different perspective. Programming is not really like assembling Lego blocks. And if you pick any other industry, taking a close look at how new developments are made, you'll find that sharing in software development is a lot more common and a lot easier. After all, when building new software, you don't have to write your own OS, your own compiler, your own debugger, your own libraries built on top, or even your own domain-specific framework. Well, unless you have the not-invented-here syndrome. And what does "fully composable" mean anyway? The real problem is we still need to program. Well, for specifications to get written, you still need to write. For designing a user interface, you still need to draw. For doing architecture, you still need to think.

cageface 15y ago
I still haven't seen a persuasive attempt to make graphical interfaces truly composable. Composing streams of characters is child's play conceptually compared to any kind of meaningful visual composibility. Just look at the api for a typical button widget in your framework of choice. How on earth are you going to expose this in a user-friendly way to the non-geek?
ericHosick 15y ago
Yes. My bad. I should have said "The real problem is we still need to code." I do agree with you that we will always need to design interfaces, engineer solutions, gather requirements, understand the systems being developed, etc. But we should not and will not need to code the solution. What does "fully composable" mean? A framework/architecture that is fully composable would be one that allows you to implement any solvable system without writing code. As for the "MBA-talk" stuff... It is possible to create frameworks that are fully composable. If you would like, I can chat with you about such things outside of HN.