5 ms·

all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago if this is all ultimately jav

all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago if this is all ultimately java but with even more steps, its a sign im definitely getting old. it’s just the same pattern of non technical people deceiving themselves into believing they dont need to be technical to build tech and then ultimately resulting in again 10-20 years of re-learning the painful lessons of that. let me off this train too im tired already

bigiain 1y ago
20 years before UML/Java it was "4th Generation Languages" that were going to bring "Application Development Without Programmers" to businesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_...
- throwawayoldie 1y ago
  And before that it was high-level programming languages, or as we call them today, programming languages.
- xorcist 1y ago
  The 4GL was mostly reporting languages, as I remember. Useful ones, too. I still feel we haven't been even close to utilizing specialized programming languages and toolkits. Put another way, I am certain that Unity has done more to get non-programmers to develop software than ChatGPT ever will.
  - throwawayoldie 1y ago
    I'd argue first prize for that goes to Excel (for a sufficiently broad definition of "develop software").
Agentlien 1y ago
Of all the things I read at uni UML is the thing I've felt the least use for - even when designing new systems. I've had more use for things I never thought I'd need like Rayleigh scattering and processor design.
- baq 1y ago
  UML was a buzzword, but a sequence diagram can sometimes replace a few hundred words of dry text. People think best in 2d.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    >People think best in 2d. no they don't. some people do. Some people think best in sentences, paragraphs, and sections of structured text. Diagrams mean next to nothing to me. Some graphs, as in representations of actual mathematical graphs, do have meaning though. If a graph is really the best data structure to describe a particular problem space. on edit: added in "representations of" as I worried people might misunderstand.
    - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
      oops, evidently I got downvoted because I don't think best in 2d and that is bad, classy as always HN.
    - TeMPOraL 1y ago
      FWIW, you're likely right here; not everyone is a visual thinker. Still, what both you and GP should be able to agree on, is that code - not pseudocode, simplified code, draft code, but actual code of a program - is one of the worst possible representations to be thinking and working in. It's dumb that we're still stuck with this paradigm; it's a great lead anchor chained to our ankles, preventing us from being able to handle complexity better.
      - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
        ok, but my reference to sentences, paragraphs and sections would not indicate code but rather documentation.
TeMPOraL 1y ago
The mistake was going after programmers, instead of going after programming languages, where the actual problem is. UML may be ugly and in need of streamlining, but the idea of building software by creating and manipulating artifacts at the same conceptual level we are thinking at any given moment, is sound. Alas, we've long ago hit a wall in how much cross-cutting complexity we can stuff into the same piece of plaintext code, and we've been painfully scraping along the Pareto frontier ever since, vacillating between large and small functions and wasting time debating merits of sum types in lieu of exception handling, hoping that if we throw more CS PhDs into category theory blender, they'll eventually come up with some heavy duty super-mapping super monad that'll save us all. (I wrote a lot on it in in the past here; c.f. "pareto frontier" and "plaintext single source of truth codebase".) Unfortunately, it may be too late to fix it properly. Yes, LLMs are getting good enough to just translate between different perspectives/concerns on the fly, and doing the dirty work on the raw codebase for us. But they're also getting good enough that managers and non-technical people may finally get what they always wanted: building tech without being technical. For the first time ever, that goal is absolutely becoming realistic, and already possible in the small - that's what the whole "vibe coding" thing heralds.
- WD-42 1y ago
  I’ve heard this many times before but I’ve never heard an argument that rebukes the plain fact that text is extremely expressive, and basically anything else we try to replace it with less so. And it happens that making a von Neumann machine do precisely what you want requires a high level of precision. Happy to understand otherwise!
  - pegasus 1y ago
    How so? Even just hypertext is more expressive than plain text. So is JSON, or any other data format or programming language which has a string type for that matter.
    - WD-42 1y ago
      Those are all still text.
rsynnott 1y ago
> all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago See also 'no-code', 4GLs, 5GLs, etc etc etc. Every decade or so, the marketers find a new thing that will destroy programming forever.
fennecfoxy 1y ago
Lmao I remember uni teaching me UML. Right before I dropped out after a year because fuck all of that. It's a shame because some of the final year content I probably would've liked. But I just couldn't handle it when I got into like COMP102 and in the first lecture, the lecturer is all "has anybody not used the internet before?" I spent my childhood doing the stuff so I just had to bail. I'm sure others would find it rewarding (particularly those that were in my classes because 'a computer job is a good job for money').

bigiain 1y ago

20 years before UML/Java it was "4th Generation Languages" that were going to bring "Application Development Without Programmers" to businesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_programming_...

throwawayoldie 1y ago
And before that it was high-level programming languages, or as we call them today, programming languages.
xorcist 1y ago
The 4GL was mostly reporting languages, as I remember. Useful ones, too. I still feel we haven't been even close to utilizing specialized programming languages and toolkits. Put another way, I am certain that Unity has done more to get non-programmers to develop software than ChatGPT ever will.
- throwawayoldie 1y ago
  I'd argue first prize for that goes to Excel (for a sufficiently broad definition of "develop software").

Agentlien 1y ago

Of all the things I read at uni UML is the thing I've felt the least use for - even when designing new systems. I've had more use for things I never thought I'd need like Rayleigh scattering and processor design.

baq 1y ago
UML was a buzzword, but a sequence diagram can sometimes replace a few hundred words of dry text. People think best in 2d.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  >People think best in 2d. no they don't. some people do. Some people think best in sentences, paragraphs, and sections of structured text. Diagrams mean next to nothing to me. Some graphs, as in representations of actual mathematical graphs, do have meaning though. If a graph is really the best data structure to describe a particular problem space. on edit: added in "representations of" as I worried people might misunderstand.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    oops, evidently I got downvoted because I don't think best in 2d and that is bad, classy as always HN.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    FWIW, you're likely right here; not everyone is a visual thinker. Still, what both you and GP should be able to agree on, is that code - not pseudocode, simplified code, draft code, but actual code of a program - is one of the worst possible representations to be thinking and working in. It's dumb that we're still stuck with this paradigm; it's a great lead anchor chained to our ankles, preventing us from being able to handle complexity better.
    - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
      ok, but my reference to sentences, paragraphs and sections would not indicate code but rather documentation.

TeMPOraL 1y ago

The mistake was going after programmers, instead of going after programming languages, where the actual problem is. UML may be ugly and in need of streamlining, but the idea of building software by creating and manipulating artifacts at the same conceptual level we are thinking at any given moment, is sound. Alas, we've long ago hit a wall in how much cross-cutting complexity we can stuff into the same piece of plaintext code, and we've been painfully scraping along the Pareto frontier ever since, vacillating between large and small functions and wasting time debating merits of sum types in lieu of exception handling, hoping that if we throw more CS PhDs into category theory blender, they'll eventually come up with some heavy duty super-mapping super monad that'll save us all. (I wrote a lot on it in in the past here; c.f. "pareto frontier" and "plaintext single source of truth codebase".) Unfortunately, it may be too late to fix it properly. Yes, LLMs are getting good enough to just translate between different perspectives/concerns on the fly, and doing the dirty work on the raw codebase for us. But they're also getting good enough that managers and non-technical people may finally get what they always wanted: building tech without being technical. For the first time ever, that goal is absolutely becoming realistic, and already possible in the small - that's what the whole "vibe coding" thing heralds.

WD-42 1y ago
I’ve heard this many times before but I’ve never heard an argument that rebukes the plain fact that text is extremely expressive, and basically anything else we try to replace it with less so. And it happens that making a von Neumann machine do precisely what you want requires a high level of precision. Happy to understand otherwise!
- pegasus 1y ago
  How so? Even just hypertext is more expressive than plain text. So is JSON, or any other data format or programming language which has a string type for that matter.
  - WD-42 1y ago
    Those are all still text.

rsynnott 1y ago

> all of this just reads like the supposed UML zeitgeist that was supposed to transform java and eliminate development 20 years ago See also 'no-code', 4GLs, 5GLs, etc etc etc. Every decade or so, the marketers find a new thing that will destroy programming forever.

fennecfoxy 1y ago

Lmao I remember uni teaching me UML. Right before I dropped out after a year because fuck all of that. It's a shame because some of the final year content I probably would've liked. But I just couldn't handle it when I got into like COMP102 and in the first lecture, the lecturer is all "has anybody not used the internet before?" I spent my childhood doing the stuff so I just had to bail. I'm sure others would find it rewarding (particularly those that were in my classes because 'a computer job is a good job for money').