Slashdot Mirror
Programming Languages For Coding the Physical World
snydeq writes: Stuffing bits in databases is boring, InfoWorld's Peter Wayner writes, so why not program everything around you? "The barrier between bits and atoms is disappearing, with programmers no longer confined to the virtual realm, in part thanks to the Internet of things becoming more real. Now we can do more than write ones and zeros to a disk: We can actually write code that tells a machine how to extrude, cut, bend, or morph atoms," Wayner writes in a survey of programming languages. "Rapidly developing domains such as autonomous cars, smart homes, intelligent office spaces, and mass customization require programmers to be savvy about how changes in data structures can lead to changes in objects. If the term "object-oriented programming" weren't already taken, it would be perfect."
That was horrible. Who is the audience for that crap?
I've been a software engineer for 10 years now, and I also do machining as a hobby. I have no idea what I just read. What the Hell was the point of that article? Here are some languages bundled into an article because....reasons?
>> Now we can do more than write ones and zeros to a disk: We can actually write code that tells a machine how to extrude, cut, bend
Keep it up. You'll invent programmable robots and automated control systems within a week at that pace.
That Fucking Article is dumbfer than A Bunch of Rocks
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The significance of this article is unclear. I suppose the OP is pointing out the fact that programming languages are becoming more specific and 'tangible' to real-world applications.
Today, many of the new markets and opportunities for developers live in the real world. Rapidly developing domains such as autonomous cars, smart homes, intelligent office spaces, and mass customization require programmers to be savvy about how changes in data structures can lead to changes in objects.
I think this quote is sort of the thesis of the article. Even still it's really ambiguous. What opportunities don't live in the 'real world'? Does he mean that information transfer isn't 'physical'? Or is he specifically talking about robotics? User-interfaces? This person needs to work on clarity, and this article should not have been posted on Slashdot.
Thank you everyone who braved that tripe so later ./ers could avoid losing brain cells.
I've always maintained definitions of the 'enthusiast' and the 'professional' when it comes to sufficiently technical fields. The enthusiast reads some media briefs, becomes enamored with some tech, wanders into his imagination in order to describe what the tech is actually capable of, then writes articles like this talking about how awesome their tech is and what it can do, while sitting in a coffeehouse waiting for their freelancer's paycheck to clear. These articles spawn another generation of 'enthusiasts', and the enthusiasts swirl around each other in a whirlpool of 'factoids' and buzzwords while other people try to extract money from them with silly books and scam kickstarters
The professional in the field has an actual job and deliverables and has no time for any of the aforementioned nonsense. New professionals are created when intelligent people read those articles and goes 'the fuck is this shit', then does actual technical research.
I used to blame Kurzweil for a lot of this but it goes back much further in history.
Please don't insult rocks. Many of them have been under a lot of stress for much of their existence.
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
Actually, it was Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, which was actually a good read.
I can see the fnords!