|
It's because the idea of programming being made simpler and for the masses and easy to read and as easy to create as speaking has been around forever, and the closest they've ever come is VB.
We're a jaded lot.
|
|
|
|
|
David Kentley wrote: the closest they've ever come is VB
You forgot COBOL.
How could you? 
|
|
|
|
|
I'd think it more likely that we will get a paradigm shift that totally changes the way we program / use computers, something away from the bit-oriented-glorified-adding-machine that we all know and love.
Quantum computers?
True neural nets?
AI?
Enhancements to the brain?
I dunno - but it should be interesting (and probably totally unexpected)!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
...understanding what the client actually wants - now that is the complex part. 
|
|
|
|
|
Programming as such will dissapear or be completely internalised bwah ha ha
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
So, you are working on WetWare nowadays?
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
I want one of the interfaces Peter Hamilton thought up in Night's Dawn, wired directly into the nerosis.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Programming has become more complex, and simpler to do, in tandem as it has evolved so far. I see no reason why this should change.
In the beginning, (are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin...)
When you programmed, you had to know exactly how the hardware worked, and what you could do with it. You had to write pretty much everything from scratch, starting with the routine to get a key from the user, debounce it, autorepeat it, and convert it into a character your program could understand. Then you could write the routine to get a number of these characters, then the routine to convert some of those into numbers, then... Anyone who doesn't think this was complex didn't do it!
There was not a lot of code-reuse in the early days - when it came in, in the form of libraries to do that basic stuff, it made our lives a whole lot simpler. So we could move on to more complex ways of using those libraries. Databases for instance - in the early days, a database was a stack of cards with (if you were lucky) a device to spit them into piles...
As we have moved on, we have made it simpler and simpler, and easier and easier to get into programming - look at Q&A if you don't believe me - but increased the complexity of what you do with the computer and the software at the same time - the simpler we make it, the more complex end result we can produce.
Will this end? No, I don't think so. Computers are more complex, but simpler to use. The tools we use are more complex, but simpler to use. And the same goes for the end result!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And the same goes for the end result
What, that people are simpler (in the mind), and keeping them happy is more complex (more and more moaners about).
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean!
I was thinking about simple stuff: delete a file in Windows 7, as opposed to delete a file in DOS. Much easier to do in 7, and also possible to undo - much more complex to implement than the DOS version.
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
8 bits at a time, and this is still being used. 
CLEAR_RAM:
CLRA
STA RAM_STRT
LDHX #RAM_STRT+1 ;CLEAR FIRST RAM AREA
LOOP_1:
MOV RAM_STRT,X+
CPHX #RAM_END
BLO LOOP_1
LDHX #NEXT_RAM ;CLEAR NEXT RAM AREA
LOOP_2:
MOV RAM_STRT,X+
CPHX #RAM_END_2
BLO LOOP_2
CLRH
CLRX
RTS
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! I preferred the Z80 version:
LD HL,RAM_START
LD DE,RAM_START+1
LD BC,RAM_SIZE
XOR A
LD (HL),A
LDIR
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
I'd forgotten that!
My least favorite recalled unintentional delete was the accidental unplugging of the power supply on the 8080A trainer on the fifth to the last line of a 600 line step program to be entered.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
...followed by copious swearing!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together.
Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
|
|
|
|
|
You brought tears to my eyes (from pain!) reminding me when I had to do the hardware stuff.
Its the man, not the machine - Chuck Yeager
If at first you don't succeed... get a better publicist
If the final destination is death, then we should enjoy every second of the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
Complexity always goes up, but at the same time we are heading for a singularity and simplification.
Its the man, not the machine - Chuck Yeager
If at first you don't succeed... get a better publicist
If the final destination is death, then we should enjoy every second of the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this comment mean anything?
Things are getting more complex, while simultaneously getting simpler? Seriously
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Does this comment mean anything?
A lame attempt at sounding profound might be the meaning hidden with the depths of third-eye Epiphanic insight.*
* Does this comment mean anything?**
** Does this comment mean anything ?***
*** How about this one ?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this comment mean anything?
Things are getting more complex, while simultaneously getting simpler?
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes to go faster you have to slow down...
Its the man, not the machine - Chuck Yeager
If at first you don't succeed... get a better publicist
If the final destination is death, then we should enjoy every second of the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
With so many APIs now available, programming seems to have become more about knowledge about APIs rather than writing actual code.
A blog I read sometime before - programming-isnt-fun-any-more[^]
|
|
|
|
|
...sooner or later, programming will be simpler to the point to be just the last step of design.
Someday, metadata based systems will "talk" between themselves to integrate and extend as required.
In the decades between, developers will continue passing from the "how" to the "what", raising the level of abstraction of the solutions they create.
Wake up! The Singularity is coming.
|
|
|
|
|
True. Whenever we discuss the future, we need to distinguish between one of several futures: what we wish would occur, what we thing could occur, and what will probably happen. In the short term, inertia will hold us on a narrow path of incremental evolution. When most of the control is exercised by certain big players, things will progress more and more slowly. Compare how much has changed between 1950 and 1985, and how small the subsequent changes have been in comparison.
Eventually, someone will step out of the forest and show the world the pointless drudgery of pouring gigabytes of literal code into thousands of unintelligent frameworks. They will analyze what the programmers and their programs are doing, together as a single unit, and realize that it is much like a person pulling a horse forward. However, when that day comes, it could amount to little if the market isn't ready for something new.
Larry Ness
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
