4 ms·

Programming languages can theoretically abstract things away to the extent a properly formulated phrase will get working code from an LLM. Construction designs

Programming languages can theoretically abstract things away to the extent a properly formulated phrase will get working code from an LLM. Construction designs and materials are still concretely limited by what physics will allow.

anamexis 3y ago
Well, programming languages are limited by what logic will allow, and computers (and by extension programming languages and LLMs) are also limited by what physics will allow.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Yes, but the compiler or LLM can theoretically handle that. In the construction case the humans are a large part of the compiler.
  - anamexis 3y ago
    Humans are a large part of the compiler and LLM in programming too.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Human choices are, yeah. My comments on this thread ultimately derive from an intro to programming with Java course 10+ years ago that I got a B- in because I never submitted the final project worth 20% of the grade. I bit off way more than I could chew in the design of the project, but ultimately gave up because of a human design choice called "type erasure" that my limited programming skills couldn't work around. I've always kind of seen programming above the level of electrical engineering as working in a social system designed with decisions that seemed like a good idea to a person who isn't me. This point was driven home a year ago when taking an R course and reading the literature discussing the grammar of R. But yeah, in addition there are physical limits for programming as well. That's what just came as a mild insight for me here. I theoretically had been aware of it, but as an end-user / non-programmer just hadn't really put it together and thought about it before. Details. :)
  - panxyh 3y ago
    You keep using programming languages instead of programming as an analogy. Is that thought through or do you just throw these two concepts in the same basket?
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      It's thought through: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38410024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38410024 But it's thought through as a person who is an amateur at best. I've taken literal introductory courses to programming in Fortran, Java, and R, have hacked together two or three VBscript programs, had a very slight one-day introduction to assembler in the Java course, and as a child was briefly in a summer program that had us "programming" a very simple robot (telling it to go certain lengths in certain directions). A former roommate said my pseudocode (when taking the Fortran course) looked like Pascal, and I used to watch him do some Forth programming. So in terms of programming philosophy I am really, really clueless. But in terms of programming languages what I do have is a basic understanding of how incredibly diverse the languages are. And that a huge amount of this diversity is based on human preferences. As an analogy to construction. Yes, there are a diverse number of techniques that can be used in constructions (yurts, hay-bail housing, etcetera). One could also draw an analogy to pre-fab construction as modular programming and libraries as kits (or whatever). But for the most part, outside of scale, it seems that most construction effectively standardized on a few "languages", if not a single language.

anamexis 3y ago

Well, programming languages are limited by what logic will allow, and computers (and by extension programming languages and LLMs) are also limited by what physics will allow.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Yes, but the compiler or LLM can theoretically handle that. In the construction case the humans are a large part of the compiler.
- anamexis 3y ago
  Humans are a large part of the compiler and LLM in programming too.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Human choices are, yeah. My comments on this thread ultimately derive from an intro to programming with Java course 10+ years ago that I got a B- in because I never submitted the final project worth 20% of the grade. I bit off way more than I could chew in the design of the project, but ultimately gave up because of a human design choice called "type erasure" that my limited programming skills couldn't work around. I've always kind of seen programming above the level of electrical engineering as working in a social system designed with decisions that seemed like a good idea to a person who isn't me. This point was driven home a year ago when taking an R course and reading the literature discussing the grammar of R. But yeah, in addition there are physical limits for programming as well. That's what just came as a mild insight for me here. I theoretically had been aware of it, but as an end-user / non-programmer just hadn't really put it together and thought about it before. Details. :)
- panxyh 3y ago
  You keep using programming languages instead of programming as an analogy. Is that thought through or do you just throw these two concepts in the same basket?
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    It's thought through: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38410024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38410024 But it's thought through as a person who is an amateur at best. I've taken literal introductory courses to programming in Fortran, Java, and R, have hacked together two or three VBscript programs, had a very slight one-day introduction to assembler in the Java course, and as a child was briefly in a summer program that had us "programming" a very simple robot (telling it to go certain lengths in certain directions). A former roommate said my pseudocode (when taking the Fortran course) looked like Pascal, and I used to watch him do some Forth programming. So in terms of programming philosophy I am really, really clueless. But in terms of programming languages what I do have is a basic understanding of how incredibly diverse the languages are. And that a huge amount of this diversity is based on human preferences. As an analogy to construction. Yes, there are a diverse number of techniques that can be used in constructions (yurts, hay-bail housing, etcetera). One could also draw an analogy to pre-fab construction as modular programming and libraries as kits (or whatever). But for the most part, outside of scale, it seems that most construction effectively standardized on a few "languages", if not a single language.