3 ms·

It seems like the hard part of programming is and always will be the problem solving part, and not the syntax memorization / environment setup. Business leaders

by jmagoon 12y ago

It seems like the hard part of programming is and always will be the problem solving part, and not the syntax memorization / environment setup. Business leaders, at least where I work, are not programming due to the fact that they just don't think computationally, not that they have to fiddle around with a DB connector. I'm curious about the target audience and the drive to make programming "easier". Sure--the tools can help, but it doesn't necessarily help a user solve the problem correctly. Is the audience programmers? Is it for replacing programmers with software power users? Or am I totally missing the point, that this is a totally new way of solving problems in a language agnostic way?

sdegutis 12y ago
The goal of getting programming into everyone's hands seems totally misguided. Not everyone is cut out for computer programming. Just like not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or a pilot or a farmer.
- mwcampbell 12y ago
  Sure, not everyone is cut out for programming. But there's still a fair amount of incidential complexity we can eliminate, which will make programming more approachable to more of the people who would be good at it.
  - jamii 12y ago
    Lockharts Lament (https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....) applies equally well to programming. People in general are smarter and more adaptable than HN seems to believe. The real obstacles to more widespread programming are a) showing people that it can make their lives easier and b) smoothing the learning curve so that it provides rewards before their patience runs out. We know this because many people do build amazingly complex systems with Excel and Access and VB6. They are clearly capable of computational thinking. They just don't have the time or inclination to invest thousands of hours into learning bash/emacs/python/js/html/css before seeing any results.
fitchb 12y ago
I think the main goal of eve is precisely to help people "think computationally". Part of that is finding a better fundamental model than imperative programming. The other part is removing incidental complexity (DB connectors, etc). If you dismiss either part you'll get exactly what we've been getting for the past 40 years: micro-optimizations. But, I agree with you, the former-- changing the fundamental computation model-- is the more exciting (and harder) of the two.

by jmagoon 12y ago

sdegutis 12y ago

The goal of getting programming into everyone's hands seems totally misguided. Not everyone is cut out for computer programming. Just like not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or a pilot or a farmer.

mwcampbell 12y ago
Sure, not everyone is cut out for programming. But there's still a fair amount of incidential complexity we can eliminate, which will make programming more approachable to more of the people who would be good at it.
- jamii 12y ago
  Lockharts Lament (https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....) applies equally well to programming. People in general are smarter and more adaptable than HN seems to believe. The real obstacles to more widespread programming are a) showing people that it can make their lives easier and b) smoothing the learning curve so that it provides rewards before their patience runs out. We know this because many people do build amazingly complex systems with Excel and Access and VB6. They are clearly capable of computational thinking. They just don't have the time or inclination to invest thousands of hours into learning bash/emacs/python/js/html/css before seeing any results.

fitchb 12y ago

I think the main goal of eve is precisely to help people "think computationally". Part of that is finding a better fundamental model than imperative programming. The other part is removing incidental complexity (DB connectors, etc). If you dismiss either part you'll get exactly what we've been getting for the past 40 years: micro-optimizations. But, I agree with you, the former-- changing the fundamental computation model-- is the more exciting (and harder) of the two.