|
i would be perfectly happy to let the visual programming idiots just live in their own world but actually they keep invading mine and saying poo poo like if you think about it what really is a file maaaannnn
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:from what I can recall, the interface between lab view and external C code is almost entirely in-debugable. a cruel twist from a language built around debugging at least in the case of the old Mac SDK, you’d use a native code debugger to observe your custom code being loaded and set breakpoints in it, after stepping or whatever in the LabView UI sure you can’t debug it all with the LabView tools but I wouldn’t expect those to work with Pascal/C/assembly/whatever
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:i would be perfectly happy to let the visual programming idiots just live in their own world but actually they keep invading mine and saying poo poo like if you think about it what really is a file maaaannnn what if code, but a database!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:what really is a file maaaannnn a miserable little pile of bytes
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
DELETE CASCADE posted:a miserable little pile of sectors
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:visual programming languages are an idea so tantalyzingly obvious. so seductive. by unfurling our linear programs into 2d diagrams, they will become intuitive. why, even a child could follow a flow-chart which converts temperature in fahrenheit to celsius and understand how it works! at a glance! python by comparison is a hopeless miasma; a sea of bizarre punctuation characters and juxtaposed sentence fragments. structure is far less obvious and natural than in the graphical presentation. the age of text-based programming is dead! i did a semester's worth of work in a visual FPGA toolchain. rewrote Tetris, we took input from a sega genesis controller, stored the game state into SRAM, and displayed the board over VGA. couldn't have been more than a few thousand gates everything in this post rings so true. it had some niceties, like i could wrap things up into "modules" and have a sheet using those higher levels of abstraction. but debugging was a nightmare, no version control/diffing (but it would have been on the generated netlists anyway). i had one bug that was in there so long we essentially worked around it, to the point when I saw and replaced the missing wire it broke everything and I had to put it back in we had a race condition at startup too, player input before the main screen would rejigger the columns to be wrapped at the wrong point, so during the demo i held the controller away from the professor until it'd settled
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:what really is a file maaaannnn a miserable little pile of records
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
i want my programming to be like playing resident evil 4 and trying to organize my inventory so everything fits
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:i did a semester's worth of work in a visual FPGA toolchain. rewrote Tetris, we took input from a sega genesis controller, stored the game state into SRAM, and displayed the board over VGA. couldn't have been more than a few thousand gates wow, modularization and abstraction you say? do go on that being said, circuit diagrams are still, well, diagrams. for some reason a visual layout is the preferred notation there. i guess we could write hdl for pcbs? maybe people should idk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
I remember some episode of the computer chronicles from like the late 80s where they demoed some program that let you write code by connecting boxes together on the screen and it's 30 years later and I'm still waiting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
dijkstra was right when he said programming is basically symbolic manipulation you could maybe imagine some interfaces to make manipulating the symbols slightly better than a simple text editor, but I don't think it would really improve much
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Presto posted:I remember some episode of the computer chronicles from like the late 80s where they demoed some program that let you write code by connecting boxes together on the screen and it's 30 years later and I'm still waiting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIMmDVLqh1s
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
i should be able to tell the computer what i want the result to be, and have it write the program for me
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:i should be able to tell the computer what i want the result to be, and have it write the program for me these people also come out of the woodwork on every programming language project, apparently just to lord over us how pointless our life's work is going to be
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:i should be able to tell the computer what i want the result to be, and have it write the program for me same, except people instead of computers
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:these people also come out of the woodwork on every programming language project, apparently just to lord over us how pointless our life's work is going to be isn’t this just prolog?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:isn’t this just prolog? it's just declarative programming in general
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:these people also come out of the woodwork on every programming language project, apparently just to lord over us how pointless our life's work is going to be and then the other people chime in about how we should just edit ASTs using a Sufficiently Advanced Editor and then every user can dynamically reskin those to resemble their favorite language and how this would solve essentially all the problems in programming language design and code collaboration i'd actually love to watch someone try using such a system on a large project and plot their blood pressure with respect to time
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
tbqh i suspect the next big thing, by necessity, will be "how can we make a computer do the same thing for a hundred years while potentially replacing every aspect of it". either some big companies will have to step up, or a lot of things will have to get a lot more abstract
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
I mean *real* code.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:and then the other people chime in about how we should just edit ASTs using a Sufficiently Advanced Editor and then every user can dynamically reskin those to resemble their favorite language and how this would solve essentially all the problems in programming language design and code collaboration This is, I think, also somewhat related to this idea of "the antisocial programmer": a genius who is too smart to talk to other people or work on a team. These people hate any kind of meetings, or working with others, and they consider programming an individual, intellectual sport rather than a sort of collaborative, social problem-solving. Any tools in support of clear communication are shunned because they waste they individual's time, who needs to crank out genius-level code. To them, pair programming, helping others by looking over each other's shoulders, etc. are major violations of their privacy and not "how coding is supposed to happen", so there's no need to care about a common lingua franca to program in. The messy "human" inefficiencies are solved through "just reformat the code you want to see it and the tool takes care of the rest", which lets them have ideal code purity designed for their tastes and sensibilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
its me, the programmer who considers routine pairing a waste of resources (it means you've hired inferior programmers)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
carry on then posted:it's just declarative programming in general it's just programming in general
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:wow, modularization and abstraction you say? honestly, we should we could call the language we use for something like that a Hardware Description Language you’ll be unsurprised to learn that this is about what Symbolics’ “NI” was, a productized version of the electronics and VLSI design tool they developed in-house and that they used to design the later 3600-series systems, the Ivory systems, the MacIvory coprocessors, and the later consoles which isn’t to say you couldn’t see a graphical view or even work in it, but you were always interacting with a structured description of a system rather than some sort of unstructured graphics editor, just like in the S-Graphics tools (which eventually became Izware Mirai and predated Inventor by many years)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Presto posted:I remember some episode of the computer chronicles from like the late 80s where they demoed some program that let you write code by connecting boxes together on the screen and it's 30 years later and I'm still waiting. late 80s or early 90s means it was probably a demonstration of Prograph which actually had a surprising amount of penetration for custom business software, probably because people who built spreadsheets to run their business could also work with it it might also mean Sirius Developer which eventually became Novell AppBuilder and was a Prograph competitor, I have an original CD of their cross platform version that supported OpenDoc part development
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:i should be able to tell the computer what i want the result to be, and have it write the program for me you can do this with fuzzing and random code generation it just takes a while
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:and then the other people chime in about how we should just edit ASTs using a Sufficiently Advanced Editor and then every user can dynamically reskin those to resemble their favorite language and how this would solve essentially all the problems in programming language design and code collaboration in .NET 1.0 this was actually feasible as long as your favorite language was either C# or VB.NET as they were just superficially different syntax for identical semantics after that point semantic divergence happened e: this is also feasible between Macintosh C and Macintosh Pascal since the former supports Macintosh Pascal constructs (length-prefixed strings, Pascal calling conventions) and the latter supports Macintosh C constructs (zero-terminated strings, C calling conventions, preprocessing, types needed for systems programming) eschaton fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
pair programming hype is the ideological face of management's refusal to train devs
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Or pair programming is actually a riot where fun is had by all. Man you need to tell a fellow toucher what to type, it's hilarious
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
No no no, name the list gazpacho because it will be full of boring stuff. We can clean it up later
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:tbqh i suspect the next big thing, by necessity, will be "how can we make a computer do the same thing for a hundred years while potentially replacing every aspect of it". either some big companies will have to step up, or a lot of things will have to get a lot more abstract for a reasonable definition of "make a computer do the same thing for a very long time" we're most definitely doing that
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:isn’t this just prolog? prolog absolutely requires the same general set of technical skills as any other kind of programming. it makes very specific programs easier to write, but you basically need a working understanding of the search algorithm in order to do non-trivial work in it
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
the idea of prolog is to describe your input and output and the language furnishes a program. in trivial cases this works. in meaningful cases it's intractable. in practice, the idea of prolog was a complete failure. prolog the actual language is kind of a neat way of thinking about some things, though. writing programs that are not restricted to a narrow domain is intrinsically, inescapably difficult. we still can't really teach humans how to compose complex programs, so it shouldn't be surprising that we have met with limited success in replacing programmers with programs. i think the best thing to aim for is tools and techniques to help people manage the complexity of software, rather than hoping to hide it or make it disappear via some sleight of hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Internet Janitor posted:the idea of prolog is to describe your input and output and the language furnishes a program. this is a rly good post
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
MC Perlis posted:When someone says: "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done", give him a lollipop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
eschaton posted:what if code, but a database! what if an image
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Unreal blueprints are a crime against humanity
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
the most surprising part of prolog to me is that it's kind of annoying to do arithmetic in it, I'm still trying to figure out a way for unification to work with some simple maths
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:isn’t this just prolog? just @ me next time
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:47 |
|
|
what if code, but too much?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 19:01
|
|
