5 ms·

This is the problem. As programmers we should be focusing effort on reducing boilerplate, so that it’s never needed again. Instead, we’ve created a boilerplat

by louthy 3y ago

This is the problem. As programmers we should be focusing effort on reducing boilerplate, so that it’s never needed again. Instead, we’ve created a boilerplate generator.

CuriouslyC 3y ago
The challenge there is that reducing boilerplate comes with opinionated magic, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way. So the creators add configs and code level config, and pretty soon you're back in boilerplate hell.
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
Nope. The wrong abstraction is too risky vs. having no abstraction. AI can let us move towards an abstraction-free mode of coding. In the future you’ll tell the AI “add a 60 second cache to every source of X data” and it’ll scour your source code for matching code and you’ll review the diffs. C programmers would review LLVM IR diffs. Web devs will review whatever compilation target they’re using. We use high level languages because they improve reading comprehension and save us time when writing. Having a copilot take on a major role allows us to fundamentally rethink programming.
- norir 3y ago
  I find it unlikely that we would be asking the ai for a very specific caching design. If the optimists are right, the ai should be able to do its own analysis and automatically design an architecture that is superior to what a human would be able to do. A job spent mostly reviewing ai generated diffs sounds like a level of hell beyond even Dante's imagination.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- louthy 3y ago
  > We use high level languages because they improve reading comprehension and save us time when writing. Which completely contradicts your earlier point. Why not just get copilot write assembly for you? Or, spit out raw machine code? Oh, that’s right, because you need to check that it hasn’t fucked something up. Which, when there’s a ton of boilerplate, is hard. It’s arguable that programming language evolution stopped around the time Java was released (barring a few sprinkles here and there, like async/await, affine/linear types, etc.) We haven’t had a major leap in language power for decades (not like the leap from assembly to procedural languages) - I believe it’s because Java popularised evolution through libraries - and for a long time that was fine, even if it did lead to language evolution stagnating. But now we’ve hit a complexity threshold that demands an abstraction leap, but instead of looking for that abstraction leap we’re getting a computer to generate boilerplate for us, hoping it will dig us out of the complexity hole. We’re still ways off having a computer maintain a complex code base over many years. So humans still have to do that. It’d be much easier if we remove the incidental complexity. “The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.” — Edsger W. Dijkstra
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    > We haven’t had a major leap in language power for decades I call bullshit. Haskell, Rust, and Zig (and others) are revolutionary. Also: Rust and Zig are facilitated by LLVM.
    - tmtvl 3y ago
      Haskell is over 30 years old and I don't know if it really was a major leap over SML. Rust is basically an ML with a borrow checker, it's cool but not really a major leap in power over C++ (maybe a leap in freedom from bugs). What does Zig do that's so revolutionary? Custom allocators are nothing new. And compile-time evaluation has been around so long some of us forgot we had it. Also Zig is working to step off LLVM.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 3y ago
I’m starting to lean in the direction that trading some boiletplate for flexibility is a good deal.

by louthy 3y ago

This is the problem. As programmers we should be focusing effort on reducing boilerplate, so that it’s never needed again. Instead, we’ve created a boilerplate generator.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

The challenge there is that reducing boilerplate comes with opinionated magic, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way. So the creators add configs and code level config, and pretty soon you're back in boilerplate hell.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago

Nope. The wrong abstraction is too risky vs. having no abstraction. AI can let us move towards an abstraction-free mode of coding. In the future you’ll tell the AI “add a 60 second cache to every source of X data” and it’ll scour your source code for matching code and you’ll review the diffs. C programmers would review LLVM IR diffs. Web devs will review whatever compilation target they’re using. We use high level languages because they improve reading comprehension and save us time when writing. Having a copilot take on a major role allows us to fundamentally rethink programming.

norir 3y ago
I find it unlikely that we would be asking the ai for a very specific caching design. If the optimists are right, the ai should be able to do its own analysis and automatically design an architecture that is superior to what a human would be able to do. A job spent mostly reviewing ai generated diffs sounds like a level of hell beyond even Dante's imagination.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
louthy 3y ago
> We use high level languages because they improve reading comprehension and save us time when writing. Which completely contradicts your earlier point. Why not just get copilot write assembly for you? Or, spit out raw machine code? Oh, that’s right, because you need to check that it hasn’t fucked something up. Which, when there’s a ton of boilerplate, is hard. It’s arguable that programming language evolution stopped around the time Java was released (barring a few sprinkles here and there, like async/await, affine/linear types, etc.) We haven’t had a major leap in language power for decades (not like the leap from assembly to procedural languages) - I believe it’s because Java popularised evolution through libraries - and for a long time that was fine, even if it did lead to language evolution stagnating. But now we’ve hit a complexity threshold that demands an abstraction leap, but instead of looking for that abstraction leap we’re getting a computer to generate boilerplate for us, hoping it will dig us out of the complexity hole. We’re still ways off having a computer maintain a complex code base over many years. So humans still have to do that. It’d be much easier if we remove the incidental complexity. “The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.” — Edsger W. Dijkstra
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > We haven’t had a major leap in language power for decades I call bullshit. Haskell, Rust, and Zig (and others) are revolutionary. Also: Rust and Zig are facilitated by LLVM.
  - tmtvl 3y ago
    Haskell is over 30 years old and I don't know if it really was a major leap over SML. Rust is basically an ML with a borrow checker, it's cool but not really a major leap in power over C++ (maybe a leap in freedom from bugs). What does Zig do that's so revolutionary? Custom allocators are nothing new. And compile-time evaluation has been around so long some of us forgot we had it. Also Zig is working to step off LLVM.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Aeolun 3y ago

I’m starting to lean in the direction that trading some boiletplate for flexibility is a good deal.