9 ms·

It's a fun talk by Bret and I think he echoes a lot of the murmurings that have been going around the community lately. It's funny that he latched onto some of

by ibdknox 13y ago

It's a fun talk by Bret and I think he echoes a lot of the murmurings that have been going around the community lately. It's funny that he latched onto some of the same core tenants we've been kicking around, but from a very different angle. I started with gathering data on what makes programming hard, he looked at history to see what made programming different. It's a neat approach and this talk laid a good conceptual foundation for the next step: coming up with a solution. In my case, my work on Light Table has certainly proven at least one thing: what we have now is very far from where we could be. Programming is broken and I've finally come to an understanding of how we can categorize and systematically address that brokeness. If these ideas interest you, I highly encourage you to come to my StrangeLoop talk. I'll be presenting that next step forward: what a system like this would look like and what it can really do for us. These are exciting times and I've never been as stoked as I am for what's coming, probably much sooner than people think. EDIT: Here's the link to the talk https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/tbd--11 https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/tbd--11

groby_b 13y ago
Grumble. I understand that you can't really share the talk before the conference, but man, you're teasing. Share a thought or two with the peons who won't/can't travel :)
- ibdknox 13y ago
  Haha it sucks actually - I love talking about this stuff, but I know I really need to save it for my talk so I'm tearing myself to pieces trying to keep quiet. I guess one thing I will say is that our definition of programming is all over the place right now and that in order for us to get anywhere we need to scale it back to something that simplifies what it means to program. We're bogged down in so much incidental complexity that the definitions I hear from people are convoluted messes that have literally nothing to do with solving problems. That's a bad sign. My thesis is that given the right definition all of the sudden things magically "just work" and you can use it to start cleaning up the mess. Without giving too much away I'll say that it has to do with focusing on data. :)
  - groby_b 13y ago
    This reminds me of the "data-oriented design" debate that's been raging in game programming for a while. I assume you've seen e.g. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/_pdf/Pitfalls_of_Object_Oriented_Programming_GCAP_09.pdf http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/_pdf/Pitfal... (or similar papers)
    - ibdknox 13y ago
      I actually have a post about data-centricity in games, though from a very different angle. http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/12/11/anatomy-of-a-knockout/ http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/12/11/anatomy-of-a-knockou...
      - johnrob 13y ago
        It seems like one large breakthrough in programming could simply be using the features of a language in a manner that best suits the problem. That's what I get from your blog post: design for what makes sense - not for what looks normal during a review. One thing I envy from LISP is that there seem to be few 'best practices' that ultimately make our applications harder to modify.
        taeric 13y ago
        That should have a nice catch phrase "solidified into disaster by 'best practices'"?
  - stelonix 13y ago
    I'm working on a system based on Bret Victor's "Programming in Principle" talk. I believe to achieve such a system, you need to find a way to add semantics to code, as well as the utilization of proofs in order to have enough constraints that your environment is seamlessly self-aware while at the same time extensible. I'm curious what you mean by data though. Is it data in the "big data" sense? What I mean is, are we talking about gathering a lot of data on coding? My approach is based on that, anyway: lots of data on code with a number of different analyzers (static and dynamic) that allows for extraction of common idioms and constraints, while allowing for the system to more easily help the user. Of course, there's no magic and a lot of times I reach dead-ends, and while I'm eager to have enough to show the world, progress has been kinda slow lately. Looking forward for your talk, be sure to link here on HN.
doorhammer 13y ago
I always kick myself for not having made it to Strange Loop when I lived in St. Louis. I'll (hopefully) be looking forward to a vid of it on infoq at some point. :)
- ibdknox 13y ago
  FWIW, after the talk I'll likely end up putting up a big thing about it on the internet somewhere. :)
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Can you attend Splash in October? I know academic conferences are probably not your pace, but there will be some good talks and it might be worth your time for networking with some of the academic PL types.
    - ibdknox 13y ago
      I'll look into it - that's likely to be a very busy time so I can't commit right at the moment.
  - doorhammer 13y ago
    This made me feel like you were going to write the content and then randomly post it in the comments section of someone's blog on clocks as garden decorations or something like that. Either way, looking forward too it!
robomartin 13y ago
APL. Start there. Evolve a true language from that reference plane. By this I mean with a true domain-specific (meaning: programming) alphabet (symbols) that encapsulate much of what we've learned in the last 60 years. A language allows you to speak (or type), think and describe concepts efficiently. Programming in APL, for me at least, was like entering into a secondary zone after you were in the zone. The first step is to be in the "I am now focused on programming" zone. Then there's the "I am now in my problem space" zone. This is exactly how it works with APL. I used the language extensively for probably a decade and nothing has ever approached it in this regard. Instead we are mired in the innards of the machine, micromanaging absolutely everything with incredible verbosity and granularity. I really feel that for programming/computing to really evolve to another level we need to start loosing some of the links to the ancient world of programming. There's little difference between what you had to do with a Fortran program and what you do with some of the modern languages in common use. That's not he kind of progress that is going to make a dent.
- ced 13y ago
  What makes APL different from, say, Lisp or Haskell? Do you have tutorials to recommend?
  - robomartin 13y ago
    I'd say abstraction and notation. Start here: http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf
  - aidos 13y ago
    Definitely watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4
    - jkarni 13y ago
      APL has its own codepage? I have to say, that's a better and simpler way of avoiding success at all costs than Haskell ever found. Not that I dislike the idea -- on the contrary, I'm inclined to conclude from my excitement over this and Haskell that I dislike success...
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
I'm still not sure how you'll make LightTable work (well scale), hopefully it involves a new programming model to make the problem more well defined? We had some great discussions at LIXD a couple of weeks ago, wish you could have been there. Everyone seems to be reinventing programming these days. We are definitely in competition to some extent. The race is on.
- ibdknox 13y ago
  > hopefully it involves a new programming model to make the problem more well defined That's exactly what I'm up to :)
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Great. I'll send you something about my new programming model when it is written up decently, but it has to do with being able to modularly re-execute effectful parts of the program after their code or data dependencies have changed.
jongraehl 13y ago
"tenets"
bachback 13y ago
@ibdknox. I've started programming Clojure in LightTable the other day. How does programming differ from editing text? Can we use gestures to navigate and produce code? I'm working on visual languages which work well in certain domains, but fail when one needs precise inputs. To me the language constructs we use are inherently tied with the production of code (Emacs + LISP). There is a very good reason the guy who built Linux come up with a great versioning system. It is fair to say that Bret does not quite now yet what he is talking about, as he says himself. As if something big is going to happen and it is hard to say what exactly it is. I hope LightTable or something like it replaces Emacs&Vim in a couple of years. I think that being able to code in the browser will turn out to be unbelievably important (although it looks not that useful today).

by ibdknox 13y ago

groby_b 13y ago

Grumble. I understand that you can't really share the talk before the conference, but man, you're teasing. Share a thought or two with the peons who won't/can't travel :)

ibdknox 13y ago
Haha it sucks actually - I love talking about this stuff, but I know I really need to save it for my talk so I'm tearing myself to pieces trying to keep quiet. I guess one thing I will say is that our definition of programming is all over the place right now and that in order for us to get anywhere we need to scale it back to something that simplifies what it means to program. We're bogged down in so much incidental complexity that the definitions I hear from people are convoluted messes that have literally nothing to do with solving problems. That's a bad sign. My thesis is that given the right definition all of the sudden things magically "just work" and you can use it to start cleaning up the mess. Without giving too much away I'll say that it has to do with focusing on data. :)
- groby_b 13y ago
  This reminds me of the "data-oriented design" debate that's been raging in game programming for a while. I assume you've seen e.g. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/_pdf/Pitfalls_of_Object_Oriented_Programming_GCAP_09.pdf http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/_pdf/Pitfal... (or similar papers)
  - ibdknox 13y ago
    I actually have a post about data-centricity in games, though from a very different angle. http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/12/11/anatomy-of-a-knockout/ http://www.chris-granger.com/2012/12/11/anatomy-of-a-knockou...
    - johnrob 13y ago
      It seems like one large breakthrough in programming could simply be using the features of a language in a manner that best suits the problem. That's what I get from your blog post: design for what makes sense - not for what looks normal during a review. One thing I envy from LISP is that there seem to be few 'best practices' that ultimately make our applications harder to modify.
      - taeric 13y ago
        That should have a nice catch phrase "solidified into disaster by 'best practices'"?
- stelonix 13y ago
  I'm working on a system based on Bret Victor's "Programming in Principle" talk. I believe to achieve such a system, you need to find a way to add semantics to code, as well as the utilization of proofs in order to have enough constraints that your environment is seamlessly self-aware while at the same time extensible. I'm curious what you mean by data though. Is it data in the "big data" sense? What I mean is, are we talking about gathering a lot of data on coding? My approach is based on that, anyway: lots of data on code with a number of different analyzers (static and dynamic) that allows for extraction of common idioms and constraints, while allowing for the system to more easily help the user. Of course, there's no magic and a lot of times I reach dead-ends, and while I'm eager to have enough to show the world, progress has been kinda slow lately. Looking forward for your talk, be sure to link here on HN.

doorhammer 13y ago

I always kick myself for not having made it to Strange Loop when I lived in St. Louis. I'll (hopefully) be looking forward to a vid of it on infoq at some point. :)

ibdknox 13y ago
FWIW, after the talk I'll likely end up putting up a big thing about it on the internet somewhere. :)
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Can you attend Splash in October? I know academic conferences are probably not your pace, but there will be some good talks and it might be worth your time for networking with some of the academic PL types.
  - ibdknox 13y ago
    I'll look into it - that's likely to be a very busy time so I can't commit right at the moment.
- doorhammer 13y ago
  This made me feel like you were going to write the content and then randomly post it in the comments section of someone's blog on clocks as garden decorations or something like that. Either way, looking forward too it!

robomartin 13y ago

APL. Start there. Evolve a true language from that reference plane. By this I mean with a true domain-specific (meaning: programming) alphabet (symbols) that encapsulate much of what we've learned in the last 60 years. A language allows you to speak (or type), think and describe concepts efficiently. Programming in APL, for me at least, was like entering into a secondary zone after you were in the zone. The first step is to be in the "I am now focused on programming" zone. Then there's the "I am now in my problem space" zone. This is exactly how it works with APL. I used the language extensively for probably a decade and nothing has ever approached it in this regard. Instead we are mired in the innards of the machine, micromanaging absolutely everything with incredible verbosity and granularity. I really feel that for programming/computing to really evolve to another level we need to start loosing some of the links to the ancient world of programming. There's little difference between what you had to do with a Fortran program and what you do with some of the modern languages in common use. That's not he kind of progress that is going to make a dent.

ced 13y ago
What makes APL different from, say, Lisp or Haskell? Do you have tutorials to recommend?
- robomartin 13y ago
  I'd say abstraction and notation. Start here: http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf http://www.jdl.ac.cn/turing/pdf/p444-iverson.pdf
- aidos 13y ago
  Definitely watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4
  - jkarni 13y ago
    APL has its own codepage? I have to say, that's a better and simpler way of avoiding success at all costs than Haskell ever found. Not that I dislike the idea -- on the contrary, I'm inclined to conclude from my excitement over this and Haskell that I dislike success...

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

I'm still not sure how you'll make LightTable work (well scale), hopefully it involves a new programming model to make the problem more well defined? We had some great discussions at LIXD a couple of weeks ago, wish you could have been there. Everyone seems to be reinventing programming these days. We are definitely in competition to some extent. The race is on.

ibdknox 13y ago
> hopefully it involves a new programming model to make the problem more well defined That's exactly what I'm up to :)
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Great. I'll send you something about my new programming model when it is written up decently, but it has to do with being able to modularly re-execute effectful parts of the program after their code or data dependencies have changed.

jongraehl 13y ago

"tenets"

bachback 13y ago

@ibdknox. I've started programming Clojure in LightTable the other day. How does programming differ from editing text? Can we use gestures to navigate and produce code? I'm working on visual languages which work well in certain domains, but fail when one needs precise inputs. To me the language constructs we use are inherently tied with the production of code (Emacs + LISP). There is a very good reason the guy who built Linux come up with a great versioning system. It is fair to say that Bret does not quite now yet what he is talking about, as he says himself. As if something big is going to happen and it is hard to say what exactly it is. I hope LightTable or something like it replaces Emacs&Vim in a couple of years. I think that being able to code in the browser will turn out to be unbelievably important (although it looks not that useful today).