3 ms·

That's kind of the thing... that there are other ways of programming (IDE instead of text editor), but for interesting languages, there's no clear cut proof tha

That's kind of the thing... that there are other ways of programming (IDE instead of text editor), but for interesting languages, there's no clear cut proof that IDEs are actually better. For languages specifically such as Java, which have very verbose syntax, and huge amounts of boilerplate for large projects, then sure, an IDE is an improvement. But even IDEs, really, haven't much changed. And the fact that we even still can have the discussion, sort of proves that it's not that much of an improvement. The core of his argument was the sequential text in 20+ year-old languages. A radical change would be similar to how 3d materials & render chains have improved in the last 20 years. From editing Renderman text files, to the nodes system: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=blender+render+nodes https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=blender+render+nodes That's a radical shift.

jimmaswell 13y ago
How are you defining an "interesting" language? Just your opinion? I'd say C# is a pretty interesting and powerful language that's extremely well-complemented by VS. There's a lot more to an IDE than code generation and autocomplete (even if those are very useful and save me a ton of time). Finding all references to a variable or function (simple text searching does not do this nearly as well - the IDE actually analyzes the language and knows what points to what). Immediately letting you know if the syntax is wrong. Very visual and intuitive debugging (it goes to the line # and lets you hover over a variable to see its contents). Jumping to a variable's definition. There have been experiments with non-textual programming, such as Scratch, but it hasn't really proven to be very useful. If there's going to be some radical shift, it might come from AI and brain scanners maybe?
- _random_ 13y ago
  Furthermore Visual Studio let's you define custom debug visualisation quite easily: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13127/Create-a-Debugger-Visualizer-in-Lines-of-Code http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13127/Create-a-Debugger-... http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/eedc48e7-5169-40d3-b602-ad451990a420 http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/eedc48e7-5169-... (but of course one has to think outside of the "evil MS" box)
- deckiedan 13y ago
  What I was meaning was 'very different from was done 20/30 years ago, but is actually practical, as powerful as languages from 20/30 years ago, and not just a tech demo...'. Yes, IDEs help a lot with some of those tasks. But we're really still improving programming in a very evolutionary way - which isn't bad. For sure c# is more powerful and interesting than 1990 era c++. But ultimately, it's not that different, really. To me, that's the interesting thing about lightroom, and all that stuff. We're able to explore some of the concepts of programming from the old smalltalk systems in a modern way. And maybe, we'll find ways of programming which do actually look different from the old ways. Maybe not. Visualising functions as things which we can glue together, transform, pass data through, etc. I'm very interested to see where it all goes.
AdrianRossouw 13y ago
is that really better though ? not today, but in 5, 10, 20 years from now. Recent experiences have shown me that flowchart systems are really really specialized tools that require a lot of training to be able to use with a modicum of success. There are very few problem domains where I believe they provide a more accessible and expressive solution than plaintext.

jimmaswell 13y ago

How are you defining an "interesting" language? Just your opinion? I'd say C# is a pretty interesting and powerful language that's extremely well-complemented by VS. There's a lot more to an IDE than code generation and autocomplete (even if those are very useful and save me a ton of time). Finding all references to a variable or function (simple text searching does not do this nearly as well - the IDE actually analyzes the language and knows what points to what). Immediately letting you know if the syntax is wrong. Very visual and intuitive debugging (it goes to the line # and lets you hover over a variable to see its contents). Jumping to a variable's definition. There have been experiments with non-textual programming, such as Scratch, but it hasn't really proven to be very useful. If there's going to be some radical shift, it might come from AI and brain scanners maybe?

_random_ 13y ago
Furthermore Visual Studio let's you define custom debug visualisation quite easily: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13127/Create-a-Debugger-Visualizer-in-Lines-of-Code http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/13127/Create-a-Debugger-... http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/eedc48e7-5169-40d3-b602-ad451990a420 http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/eedc48e7-5169-... (but of course one has to think outside of the "evil MS" box)
deckiedan 13y ago
What I was meaning was 'very different from was done 20/30 years ago, but is actually practical, as powerful as languages from 20/30 years ago, and not just a tech demo...'. Yes, IDEs help a lot with some of those tasks. But we're really still improving programming in a very evolutionary way - which isn't bad. For sure c# is more powerful and interesting than 1990 era c++. But ultimately, it's not that different, really. To me, that's the interesting thing about lightroom, and all that stuff. We're able to explore some of the concepts of programming from the old smalltalk systems in a modern way. And maybe, we'll find ways of programming which do actually look different from the old ways. Maybe not. Visualising functions as things which we can glue together, transform, pass data through, etc. I'm very interested to see where it all goes.

AdrianRossouw 13y ago

is that really better though ? not today, but in 5, 10, 20 years from now. Recent experiences have shown me that flowchart systems are really really specialized tools that require a lot of training to be able to use with a modicum of success. There are very few problem domains where I believe they provide a more accessible and expressive solution than plaintext.