3 ms·
Ten years from now, will not be much more different. Essentially computing needs a breakthrough to move to the next level. What this breakthrough is nobody know
by yannis 17y ago
Ten years from now, will not be much more different. Essentially computing needs a breakthrough to move to the next level. What this breakthrough is nobody knows. A program written in the latest fashionable language of to-day is essentially not much more different from one written in Cobol or Fortran or Ada 30 years ago. We refining the tools but not discovering any new fundamentals.
I expect such a breakthrough to be achieved via two possible paths:
(a) By brute force : the effect of interconnecting the worlds information via the internet.
(b) Parallel processing to be stimulated further by breakthroughs in bio-informatics.
- eru 17y agoPrograms written in say Prolog, Haskell or Curry are definitely different than Cobol or Fortran or Ada 30 years ago. And different from Lisps (and perhaps ML) of that time too.
- yannis 17y agoOnly on the 'surface'. For example write a program to add a+b! The 'language ' maybe different but not the concepts. I am arguing that we need a fundamental breakthrough.
- Locke1689 17y agoNot gonna happen. Sorry, but this is like saying that we need a breakthrough in "base 3" because "base 2" is too limiting. The fundamental physics of our computing is unlikely to change (I'm sorry but I don't see quantum computing being practical in the next 50 years, if ever), therefore eventually we'll still be programming opcodes on processor dies. However, if you don't believe that the underlying architecture of computing hasn't changed in, hell, the past ten years, then I think you've been programming in high level languages a bit too much.
- eru 17y agoIn the type system: > data Zero > data Succ a > class Add a b ab | a b -> ab, a ab -> b > instance Add Zero b b > instance (Add a b ab) => Add (Succ a) b (Succ ab)