3 ms·
Programming has always been making really detailed instructions that tell machine what to do. The article could have been written in 1989, 1995, or 2005 and rea
by indymike 4y ago
Programming has always been making really detailed instructions that tell machine what to do. The article could have been written in 1989, 1995, or 2005 and really been materially the same. Glue code, boilerplate, tests, frameworks, languages, and maintaining existing code all things that developers complain about. All things waiting for the next magical solution...
We largely build software the same way with the same tools (I'm looking at an Emacs window). One line at a time (or one boilerplate paste at a time). It's been decades since I sat down with Turbo C and discovered the ID, and decades since I drew my first UI on a NeXT Cube. Decades since Java, Python and C#. We've never found a way to program at a higher level - we're still stuck processing strings, parsing text, formatting text... all these little details that make it really hard to work at a higher level of abstraction. And all little details where each developer does it just enough differently that we can't be sure what our code really does...
I guess that is how job security works.
- 082349872349872 4y ago> We've never found a way to program at a higher level Compare 1950-1970 with 1980-now. We found a way to program at a higher level then; why shouldn't we be able to now?[0] In the meantime, as a minor win, I'll note that most of my $WORK codebases in the XX were heavy on pointer[1] manipulation, while very few of them are in the XXI. [0] let's hope the gap between structured programming and its replacement is not going to be as long as that between Euclid and Lobachevsky! [1] "pointers are the goto of data structures" (bastardized Tony)