Slashdot Mirror
Dumbing Down Programming?
RunRevKev writes "The unveiling of Revolution 4.0 has sparked a debate on ZDNet about whether programming is being dumbed down. The new version of the software uses an English-syntax that requires 90 per cent less code than traditional languages. A descendant of Apple's Hypercard, Rev 4 is set to '...empower people who would never have attempted programming to create successful applications.' ZDNet reports that 'One might reasonably hope that this product inspires students in the appropriate way and gets them more interested in programming.'"
There's two major sides to this issue. One seems (note I said seems, not implying at all that it's unavoidable) to be that the more human readable and dummy proof the more overhead you pay when you design/implement a programming language. You might find the C/C++ crowd commonly accuse the Java or Ruby crowd of this overhead. Indeed, Java has a garbage collector designed to protect you from memory leaks and Ruby is an interpreted language that pays a mild additional overhead since it cannot be optimized upon compilation. But that's another debate altogether, it just is evident that the more you move away from actual machine language and assembly then more overhead you pay (generally).
The other side of this issue is that computers are our servants, not the other way around (and if anyone reading this is a bot or script, don't you forget that). I don't recall where I read it but this is the reason why the string is the most important data structure in computer programming. Because simply put, the string is the best way to communicate with the user. What follows from this logic is to screw the optimizers (or 'misers, if you will) and make the servant learn the language of the master--not the other way around. And isn't this how the most complex applications have progressed? Once requiring training and years of experience, now even a kindergartner can master a word processor. Computers and applications will forever be bending over backwards for the most important thing to us: us.
And yet if an implementation of a language incurs on average of 10% overhead, your hardware will catch up in a matter of months.
And yet if you run a data center the size of Google's and have several applications in said implementation running on hundreds of thousands of machines, a cycle here and a cycle there isn't so laughable to work toward saving. And isn't it the big players that ensure the lengthy life of a language and its implementations?
So it's a good debate with several sides. Personally, I love the fact that I can code a web application in Ruby, run some old C code off sourceforge in Java with JNI (sort of) and bust out a C++ application for manipulating ID3 tags across my entire music library. To those arguing against Rev4, I ask simply "why not?" I mean, you don't have to use it, it's a natural progression so let it happen. Maybe you'll find it useful for prototyping? Maybe you'll find it's a useful tool for some problems and your toolbox will grow? Who knows?
In the end, I would like to opine that the the chip makers are forcing us towards languages that make multi-threading more intuitive and useful. I mean they concentrate on threads communicating or even implementing APIs to help automate (by enabling what is appropriate to multithread) in loops and algorithms. That's going to be a large factor on whether a new language is adopted and survives.
My work here is dung.
People have been saying this since FORTRAN meant you didn't need to know assembly language to make use of a computer.
The big thing I notice in their "competitive comparisons" is that they strive to make Java, C#, C++, and PHP as verbose as possible when they're creating what looks like it should be optimal Rev code.
I wonder if they didn't compare themselves to Ruby or Python because they couldn't contrive examples that produce huge LOC differences?
The development of new languages and new ways of simplifying coding has been a part of the computer landscape since the whole thing began. You can argue that coding in Python is a form of "dumbed down" assembly. I wouldn't think of creating a webapp with assembly! Django has "dumbed down" much of the mundane parts I often have to create and dealing with forms and templating. But the one thing I have noticed is that no matter how easy "programming" gets there are still people that will just not "do it".
I still can't see the masses suddenly deciding that they're going to program applications now. Hell, most of the people I know think conditional formatting in excel is just too much effort. I can see this just being used by actual programmers for users but I dont think it will see in a swath of uber-uber-amateur programmers all of a sudden.
jaymz
.net appears to be doing rather well.
Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user whose mind can express algorithms. And of all the people who can express algorithms and would want to, few are limited by the commonly used languages, that is, if you have a mind made for creating algorithms, learning to use a programming language will be fairly trivial.
You just got troll'd!
Natural languages are full of ambiguities, so these "natural language programming environments" always use a more formal syntax (and semantic) and only look superficially like a natural language. Until you can actually talk to a computer (and the computer can take all the context into account), programming in such a language irritates people to no end when they stumble upon one of the differences between the programming language and the natural language it imitates.
Programming is the act of understanding and structuring a problem. The coding that follows is practically trivial compared to that first step. There's certainly a need for more programmers, because more and more is automated and someone has to write that software, but please don't create the impression that you can eliminate thinking from programming. Fixing bad code costs more than writing good code.
Paul Graham wrote a very informative article about "news stories" like this one many years ago. And congrats to the company behind RunRev, it is not that often /. runs slashvertizements for costly commerical software no one has ever heard of.
Football Odds
The reason VB got a bad rap isn't because of VB, which IMHO is fine if it is used as intended, it is the fact that too many folks tried to stick a square peg in a round hole and use VB where it didn't belong.
VB does ONE job and does it quite well-GUIs for databases. That's it. Nothing fancy, just a quick and basic GUI so sally secretary can input data into a database and get data out of it. While you may argue that you can do the same thing in other languages, which of course you can, the simple fact is most SMBs and SOHOs simply couldn't afford it. Hiring a programmer isn't cheap, whereas with VB even a simple PC repairman like myself can whip off a nice GUI for a database, which in my experience is one of the biggest needs for a custom app that most SMBs have and is why VB is still the # 3 language for business, even though MSFT has done everything they can to kill it.
So if you want to complain about dumbing down in general please do. But VB when used as intended by someone who knew the limits of the language was and still is just fine for the job at hand. For making custom GUIs for databases I have yet to see anything that works as easily and as affordable as VB does in that role.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Ideally, a programmer should document each section of code by writing a block of comments explaining (1) why the code is used and (2) how the code works -- in plain English. However, given the intense pressure to produce code by an unreasonable deadline (imposed by brutal managers risking a bullet through their head), the first thing that is sacrificed is comments. Not writing comments saves several minutes per section of code and -- in total -- saves days of work over the course of the project. In other words, not writing comments means that an impossible deadline becomes slightly more possible.
A programming language that uses mostly English words and syntax is essentially an environment for self-documentating code: the holy grail of brutal managers everywhere. However, this self-documentation addresses only "how the code works". The programmer must still write comments explaining "why the code is used". Still, getting half of a loaf is better than getting nothing at all.
is it just me or does an ordinary 'easy' programming language like PHP, VB or python seem much easier to work with? the syntax of rev4 seems far too verbose, not nearly enough parenthesis.
also if you understand how the machine works is there any real need to program in 'plain english'? the syntax doesn't quite make sense to me like other languages would. for example it seems more logical to have a loop to move something along by a tiny amount and then wait a bit rather than telling it to move a thing from one side to the other "in 5 seconds". with plain english you also end up with stuff that has multiple equally valid meanings
i have nothing against making programming easier, just don't think this is the right way to go about it. a good IDE with syntax highlighting and prompting features like VB and a good set of libraries with decent error handling is better than any of this plain english stuff that introduces mostly redundant keywords for the sake of having plain english
I hope they embrace this stuff like crazy. There's nothing better for our careers than lots of shitty code written by people who are just barely above monkeys in terms of intelligence.
Why is that? Because they will fuck it up horribly. And then they will need real programmers to come in and clean up the mess. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty, there's a huge amount of work to be done.
This is perhaps the best thing to hit the industry since outsourcing to India. My company has been fixing their fuckups for the past decade.
It's entertaining to see them screw up. It's even better to see the outsourcing managers who have to come to us and admit that their "cost-saving" measures will now cost their companies 5x to 10x what it would have had they just done it properly and had real programmers write their code.
In this respect, I think "clarity" is improved much more by using constructs from mathematics than from "english".
So computing languages that try to avoid classic mathematical syntax are probably more a reflection of "the fear of math" rather than "the fear of computers". Although there's bound to be some overlap. The real problem in both cases is widespread fear and ignorance. This isn't just about people writing their own programs. The reluctance to learn and explore hamper the usefulness of basic end user interfaces (GUIs).
We may be encouraging people to run with scissors when they haven't even figured out turning over yet.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...which is largely due to external factors.
(not saying .Net isn't nice, but ask yourself if it would do that well if it came from some small 3rd party dev)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Let dumber people program and you end up with dumber programs. Way back in year 2000 I found that most of the Y2K bugs were actually from more recently written programs in dumbed down languages.
I don't see it that way.
After spending a few years in garbage collected land, I was assigned to work on a C++ application. The C++ application was a mere SOAP wrapper for a database, so it wouldn't have any noticeable performance advantages over an equivalent program written in a garbage collected language.
The problem that quickly became obvious to me, and why I ran away from the project, is that manual memory management is so time consuming; even as an expert programmer, that the "soft and easy" languages are more about letting great programmers get more things done in less time.
This is even the approach taken in Python; the recommendation is to write well-tuned libraries in C for the parts where C will increase performance. For parts where C is a waste of time, Python lets you not worry about silly details.
No, I will not work for your startup
Unfortunately, that makes sense to managers only. Those of us at the coal face know that you can hire cheaper, less skilled programmers and let them loose with easy-to-use languages (eg Visual Basic) and you will get a monstrous mess that is impossible to maintain.
If you make them use a reasonably difficult language, most of them will not bother becoming programmers. This a good thing.
One other point that is never noted in these ideas to simplify programming and make programmers generic 'coding resources' is that a good, experienced, coder can do more work ( that is better quality) than half a dozen cheap, less skilled coders. This is never factored into management ideas of how you can outsource your coding and get the same quality for a tenth the price. This could be why a lot of outsourced contracts don't tend to last unless they're lost in a sea of big-corporate bureaucracy.
Oh, and don;t forget that the more you chop and change programming languages, the less programmers you have who are experienced using them - you will get C programmers who have 40 years experience, you tend to get programmers who've "had a tinker" with languages like runrev.
This can be seen even in universities, there are CS majors with no education in ASSEMBLER or C during the whole studies, some haven't even used C++.
And money dictates here too. We are forced to study that horrible, disturbed nightmare that is Symbian for mobile development class, although I did manage to talk the lecturer into allowing one half of the course test to be for Android if one wanted it to.
I don't consider myself a good coder; my experience comes via a hobby from a simple c-like language which pretends to have objects. I've also seen some so, so much better coders, especially within in the demo scene, but even I can see that the level of a regular CS student is horrible. There are few rare gems out there, but the average is nasty. It'd be absurd to expect them to learn those languages to any decent level within the regular course times either.
The efficiency of one's code is hardly ever noted within courses. It's good if it works. There's probably just so huge need for 'bulk coders' and other 'it professionals' that they've had to dumb down most of the courses. There are only a few rare courses which really challenge you (logic programming being the usual cause), and they're not needed to get the papers.
It's infuriating having to drowse through such highest level education.
The best approach is to develop fast, identify bottlenecks and then require the user to upgrade their computer.... their IT infrastructure... Worldwide network and datacenters.
That's the economic history of programming.
Deleted
boost::shared_ptr
Yup, I worked with that when it was appropriate. That's not the issue. The real issue is that, when using boost::shared_ptr, you need to treat memory on the heap and stack differently. It's kind of silly to worry about these things in a thin SOAP wrapper for a database where the database is the real bottleneck and the overhead of garbage collection is negligible.
The other issue that I failed to mention is that compiling C++ is often an order of magnitude slower then newer languages. This slow compile time is much more "expensive" then any lost sales due to requiring a slightly faster CPU and slightly more RAM.
I can give you another example: An AI researcher that I know of re-wrote newer versions of her algorithm in Java instead of C++. Even though garbage collection givers her some visible performance implications, she can program and test her algorithms much faster, which has tangible economic value for her company.
No, I will not work for your startup
This is an age old quest. There has been attempts at making programming English like for many decades ...
First there was COBOL: COmmon Business Oriented Language. Its syntax is very similar to English. It was sold as a way to make Managers able to write programs without the need of having a developer involved.
ADD 1 TO IDX.
SUBTRACT 1 FROM IDX.
MOVE X TO Y.
What happened instead is that a generation of developers learned COBOL and specialized in it, and managers were still managing.
Next, there was SQL: Structured Query Language. Despite the mathematical model behind relational databases, SQL was again sold as a way for managers to execute queries and get reports for themselves. That may have worked until the manager who ran a query on seven tables without any joins. That made everyone go again to "leave it to the programmers" mode again ...
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
They said the same thing about COBOL.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From TFA: "I suppose that adds up, 90 per cent less code equates to ten times faster."
Really? I suppose you can write haiku ten times faster than stream-of-conscious recordings, too?
There's one thing that computer code and natural language text have in common: For both, confusing "writing" with "typing" is moronic.
... which is to say, not at all.
The idea is not new, and something like this has been tried pretty much since the notion of a programming language higher-level than assembler was invented. Most of them die straight away. A few enjoy brief prominence, but then die anyway (e.g. dBase and dialects, and many other "4GL").
Very few survive and take over some niche, but by that time they've inevitably strayed from the original "can be understood by any random guy" design goal. One example of such is SQL - yes, originally, it was intended to be a language in which managers and like-minded non-techies could easily write queries for reports etc. Yeah, right... every time I'm explaining why you can't write WHERE after GROUP BY, and have to use HAVING instead, I chuckle to myself.
One of the astro-turf comments in TFA reads like this:
"Even though ‘90-per cent less code than traditional languages’ reads like a big claim, it is valid one.
If you have a string you want to extract the first 3 characters of the second word on the 5ths line from and display it in an alert box, how many lines of code would you need to write in traditional languages? In rev this is a one-liner.
answer char 1 to 3 of word 2 of line 5 of theString /* where theString is a variable that holds the content */"
Of course any competent programmer can do the same in just as little code. For java it would be something like this:
alert(theString.replaceFirst("(.*\n){4}\\s*\\S+\\s+","").substring(0,3));
or
alert(theString.split("\n")[4].trim().split(" +")[1].substring(0,3));
This is roughly the same amount of code. Not 90% less.
"Text processing" is apparently touted as one of the strong points of the language. Yet, I am sure old fashioned perl and regular expressions are likely more concise and powerful. As shown above, even java can compete.
How would this fare with real programming tasks? First order functions? List comprehension? Closures? A sound typesystem? You could go on forever.
These topics seem to be ignored. This is a VisualBasic clone, not an attempt at a language that you would create "real" programs in.
So what if it's easier or dumber or whatever?
Most of us aren't out there revolutionizing the world with our leet skills - we're pulling numbers out of a database and shuffling them into some other database. It happens - we get paid.
If this language gets some of the shovelwork off my back and frees up time for me to solve some interesting problems, then I'm all in favor of it. If it provides a way for me to earn an income (or someone else to) then I'm all in favor of it.
If it gets a few more people interested in programming, I think the world can handle that. Just because there's a new language on the block doesn't mean that all the other languages are suddenly useless. After all, we still have stuff written in COBOL floating around.
The big picture guys will still hire programmers to do what we do because we can think about a task and break it down into it's component steps.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"