|
Don't look now, but the era of low-code/no-code development may be passing us by faster than we ever dreamt it would. Have no fear. Someone will re-re-re-re-invent it shortly
|
|
|
|
|
Model based development is going forward quite excellently though.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: but the era of low-code/no-code development may be passing us by faster than we ever dreamt it would.
Got shadowed by LLM era
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
MoonBit is an end-to-end programming language that’s optimized for WebAssembly, while also compiling to JavaScript and Assembly code. For those who always wanted to moon their code
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: MoonBit is an end-to-end programming language that’s optimized for WebAssembly, while also compiling to JavaScript and Assembly code.
Someone to tell them that when trying to do a lot at once results not always go good... (see windows 8)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Brooks thinks it’s impressive technology, but maybe not quite as capable as many are suggesting. I'm sure his stuff is more important
|
|
|
|
|
Article wrote: Brooks thinks it’s impressive technology, but maybe not quite as capable as many are suggesting.
Is that not what we are saying since ChatGPT v1?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
But no one listens to us (or at least me) 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft is making a big push to publicize its new .NET Aspire tech stack for streamlining the development of .NET cloud-native services. The 'embrace' phase of 'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish'
Or the lock-in part, I don't judge (much)
|
|
|
|
|
Research model catches bugs in AI-generated code, improving human oversight of AI. Hey! I thought criticizing ChatGPT was my job!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Kent Sharkey does not really exist. He is an AI generated by a random number generator.
Maybe still is... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 11’s June 2024 optional update is once again available via Windows Update, but it’s now crashing the taskbar. Microsoft has confirmed that it’s looking into the reports. You weren't using that taskbar anyway, were you?
|
|
|
|
|
Article wrote: Microsoft has confirmed that it’s looking into the reports.
If they look at them as they look to the insider channel... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft's CEO of AI said that content on the open web can be copied and used to create new content. What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs
|
|
|
|
|
May all of his own personal search results forever redirect to 4-chan.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this apply to the "patched" versions of Windows I definitely never ever used?
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the few things I do like of the EU
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
While Google Translate is far from perfect, it's still a helpful way to gain information or engage in conversation. How many of the languages were invented by the AI?
I'm shocked they haven't had Cantonese until now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'd need 4 shift keys!?
I bet predictive AI would work really well on that. Enough that building it into the keyboard itself would be worthwhile. Kinda like the whole drag-spelling thing for SMS.
|
|
|
|
|
That's kind of how the JIS (Japanese) input works - at least from what I could tell watching a friend typing with it. It guesses at the Kanji variants as you're typing.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
In the mid 1980s (before the proliferation of PCs) I was working in Asia.
I was shown a "long-form" Chinese keyboard for a CRT terminal.
It had a matrix of about 30 x 20 keys, each with (if I recall correctly) up to 16 characters, and a 4x4 array of shift keys.
Expert users were capable of more than single figures of characters-per-MINUTE.
(I believe its heritage was typesetting machines.)
They were just starting to develop constructive entry methods, where the character could be "assembled" from multiple keystrokes on a regular sized keyboard, and they had some of what we would now call predictive text to speed things up.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
A programming language akin to BASIC (in being more like 'natural' language) might be really really strong for languages where the characters have that semantic difference based on context.
I say that not really knowing much about them.
For the insanity that was APL, it probably did have its strengths though and I can see where that contextual difference is basically a condensed form of syntax for things we do in code. Stuff like scoping and "var" and other things where in 'normal' languages the context is king and just maybe requires different syntaxes to get what you want.
Does anyone know if there are any programming languages which are explicitly non-English-language based?
(I asked but then googled it because I was that curious)
I found that amongst their other transgressions, AAPL aided the Chinese with their own BASIC. (1/2 joke)
调试输出("Hello, world!")
That last symbol means "raise the roof" and I won't hear otherwise. lol.
Wenyan sounds pretty interesting.
Non-English-based programming languages - Wikipedia[^]
|
|
|
|
|
jochance wrote: For the insanity that was APL,
Actually, for many years after its introduction, APL wasn't a programming language at all. It was a matrix notation that math professor Kenneth Iverson used for the blackboard when lecturing matrix math at Harvard. Some of his computer friends suggested that maybe you could have a computer actually interpreting this notation.
For math operations, having a three-character symbol to denote an arbitrary inner product is extremely convenient - far more than a doubly nested loop with braces and loop control variables and termination conditions.
The 'insanity' lies in trying to use a hammer as a screwdriver. APL was never meant for developing text processing systems or virus scanners. (Yet you might be surprised by the variety of applications where APL actually is a suitable tool!)
jochance wrote: Does anyone know if there are any programming languages which are explicitly non-English-language based?
There probably are a lot, but English-speaking programmers won't have heard of them. NIH  [Sorry, David O'Neill...]
The MS Excel macro language was initially non-English based; it used function names defined by the language version of the Excel application creating it. So if you received a spreadsheet with macros from a source in another language speaking community, the spreadsheet was useless. Quite early (I guess it was in the jump from version 2 to 6, but correct me if I am wrong) the symbolic identifiers were internally replaced with binary IDs, to be mapped to the language of the actual user in the UI. (Hear! Hear! ... How many of you can, honest to some deity, say that you never the last ten years wrote a UI related text string into your source code? )
Some languages are explicitly defined by 'abstract' tokens. Mapping these onto concrete tokens is left to separate documents, quite similar to some libraries with 'bindings' to several programming languages. Algol68 was one of those. I have seen Algol68 source code in German. I know enough German to recognize all the reserved words (but not all of the variable names and the comments ).
In my student days, we made a simple Pascal preprocessor, allowing us to program in Norwegian (we even chose the 'New Norwegian' variant, based on West Norway dialects): All the preprocessor did was replacing any occurrence of MEDAN...GJER with WHILE...DO, BOLK with PROCEDURE, OM...SÅ with IF...THEN, BYRJ...STOGG with BEGIN...END and so on. This obviously introduced a whole new set of reserved words, but we required them to be in upper case. Pascal casing for all user defined symbols was as established coding practice, so it caused no real problems.
Symbol recognition of keywords happens in the very, very first part of the compilation, in the scanner / tokenizer. Making a different source code language hardly affects the compilator at all. You may not be able to adapt to an arbitrary language, at least not in a 'natural' way, if the structure of the abstract language has a structure different from the desired source language. E.g. Pascal has a distinct token (THEN) separating a condition and an action; C does not. If the desired language never uses any such separator, then requiring source to have it makes it look artificial. But if the grammar does not specify any separator while the desired language always requires one, a source statement may appear to the reader as incomplete. (Of course you could introduce a keyword that parses to nothing, but I and many others dislike such solutions!)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
