Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 21:17:26 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote: On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: would suffice. When you said I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur, you seemed to be talking about more than just programmers. I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach fruition: http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs. Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the second link, the lead programmer supposedly said, For me TLO remains the 1st ever programming wizard. Wrongly advertised and promoted, but inherentlyt a 'good idea'. Considering how widespread wizards are in Windows these days, the idea has certainly done well. I do think that that concept of non-technical users providing constraints and answering questions is the future of building software, it just can't be built by one isolated guy. The configuration and glue code can be auto-generated, but there will likely always need to be core libraries written in a programming language by programmers. But the same automation that has put most travel agents out of work will one day be applied to most programmers too.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 18:49:01 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 21:17:26 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote: On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: would suffice. When you said I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur, you seemed to be talking about more than just programmers. I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach fruition: http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs. Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the second link, the lead programmer supposedly said, For me TLO remains the 1st ever programming wizard. Wrongly advertised and promoted, but inherentlyt a 'good idea'. Considering how widespread wizards are in Windows these days, the idea has certainly done well. I do think that that concept of non-technical users providing constraints and answering questions is the future of building software, it just can't be built by one isolated guy. The configuration and glue code can be auto-generated, but there will likely always need to be core libraries written in a programming language by programmers. But the same automation that has put most travel agents out of work will one day be applied to most programmers too. It was such an exciting time back then, but most of us who had a clue knew that it certainly couldn't be done (at that time, anyway). Around about the same time there was another article in PCW (a great magazine by the way) about a data compression tool that you could rerun over and over again to make files smaller and smaller ;-). I wish we could read the back issues like we can with Byte (on archive,org). Even the adverts are great to read for us old hands. As to whether we'll ever do it, I agree with previous comments that it's related to understanding language - context is everything, and that takes an understanding of life and its paraphernalia.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:49:00 +, Joakim wrote: On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 21:17:26 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote: On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: would suffice. When you said I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur, you seemed to be talking about more than just programmers. I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach fruition: http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs. Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the second link, the lead programmer supposedly said, For me TLO remains the 1st ever programming wizard. Wrongly advertised and promoted, but inherentlyt a 'good idea'. Considering how widespread wizards are in Windows these days, the idea has certainly done well. I do think that that concept of non-technical users providing constraints and answering questions is the future of building software, it just can't be built by one isolated guy. The configuration and glue code can be auto-generated, but there will likely always need to be core libraries written in a programming language by programmers. But the same automation that has put most travel agents out of work will one day be applied to most programmers too. that would be a big day! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 20:51:52 UTC, FG wrote: But if you look at my function definition, it doesn't have that, nor does it use parentheses, semicolons, etc., so it's voice-ready. My question is: at which point would that be considered an efficient method to define a program's component that we would choose to use instead of the current succinct symbolic notation? We will probably keep some variation on the current textual symbolic notation but develop verbal shorthand and IDEs that enable faster programming than even keyboards allow today. Yeah, right, people will create drawings with voice commands. :) Every interface has its rightful domain and voice ain't best for everything. Or do you mean that touch will go away but instead people will be waving their hands around? Yes, hand and fingers, as I said before, and you will even be able to paint in 3D: https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/573/hands-microsoft-hololens On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 21:46:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Of course. But we're talking here about interfaces for *programmers*, not for your average Joe, for whom a pretty GUI with a button or two would suffice. When you said I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur, you seemed to be talking about more than just programmers. This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day will ever come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on natural language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say that heuristics can solve this, I call BS on that. Heuristics are bug-prone and unreliable (because otherwise they'd be algorithms!), precisely because they fail to capture the essence of the problem, but are merely crutches to get us mostly there in lieu of an actual solution. You don't have to handle full natural language to handle voice input, you can constrain the user to a verbal shorthand for certain tasks. Eventually, you can loosen that requirement as the recognition engines get better. You can never have algorithms that handle all the complexity of human speech, especially since the speech recognition engine has no understanding of what the words actually mean. But thousands upon thousands of heuristics might just do the job. The inherent ambiguity in natural language comes not from some kind of inherent flaw as most people tend to believe, but it's actually a side-effect of the brain's ability at context-sensitive comprehension. The exact same utterance, spoken in different contexts, can mean totally different things, and the brain has no problem with that (provided it is given sufficient context, of course). The brain is also constantly optimizing itself -- if it can convey its intended meaning in fewer, simpler words, it will prefer to do that instead of going through the effort of uttering the full phrase. This is one of the main factors behind language change, which happens over time and is mostly unconscious. Long, convoluted phrases, if spoken often enough, tend to contract into shorter, sometimes ambiguous, utterances, as long as there is sufficient context to disambiguate. This is why we have a tendency toward acronyms -- the brain is optimizing away the long utterance in preference to a short acronym, which, based on the context of a group of speakers who mutually share similar contexts (e.g., computer lingo), is unambiguous, but may very well be ambiguous in a wider context. If I talk to you about UFCS, you'd immediately understand what I was talking about, but if I said that to my wife, she would have no idea what I just said -- she may not even realize it's an acronym, because it sounds like a malformed sentence you The only way to disambiguate this kind of context-specific utterance is to *share* in that context in the first place. Talk to a Java programmer about UFCS, and he probably wouldn't know what you just said either, unless he has been reading up on D. This acronym example is actually fairly easy for the computer to handle, given its great memory. But yes, there are many contexts where the meaning of the words is necessary to disambiguate what is meant and without some sort of AI, you have to rely on various heuristics. The only way speech recognition can acquire this level of context in order to disambiguate is to customize itself to that specific user -- in essence learn his personal lingo, pick up his (sub)culture, learn the contexts associated with his areas of interest, even adapt to his peculiarities of pronunciation. If software can get to this level, it might as well pass the Turing test, 'cos then it'd have enough context to carry out an essentially human conversation. I'd say we're far, far from that point today, and it's not clear we'd ever get there. I'd say we're fairly close, given the vast computing power in even our mobile devices these days, and that is nowhere near the Turing test, as
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote: would suffice. When you said I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur, you seemed to be talking about more than just programmers. I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach fruition: http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress. For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic with natural voice processing. People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive. You missed my remark about the age of computing versus other arts from engineering. We are still building bridges with wood and houses with clay. - Paulo
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those that follow C like syntax. There are quite a few other examples. Also the mention that as far as the researcher is aware, only Microsoft is pursuing such studies for language features. Don Syme is in the audience and gives an example how they did it for .NET generics. Anything wrong with VB.NET?
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Monday, 23 March 2015 at 10:40:12 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress. For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic with natural voice processing. People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive. You missed my remark about the age of computing versus other arts from engineering. We are still building bridges with wood and houses with clay. - Paulo Maybe, and we will certainly see more of this in the future. However, that future may be far away, considering it is promised for decades at this point and still not up and running. Also, someone will have to code these systems, so the job we do now will still be necessary.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:58:18 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: HS Teoh is right about context, and the superiority of the written word for organizing and expressing thinking at a very high level. The nature of human memory and perception means that is unlikely to change very soon, if ever. Actually, the visual system is a lot more powerful than our very limited capability of dealing with abstract symbols. But developing visual languages/tools for programming is very challenging and quite expensive given the foundation we have in math. No doubt these techniques will continue to grow in usefulness (I certainly hope so, and am making that bet), but the ultimate implications depend on your conception of what creativity is. Unfortunately progress will probably be defined by the industry desire to commoditize the programming profession, which basically will drive it more towards configuration than construction. We already see this? An incredible amount of websites are built on top of a technical pile of configurable dung, Wordpress (and Php). Add to this that the new generations of nerds grow up with a different knowledge frame (ipads) than the programmers of the 80s who grew up with peeks, pokes and machine language. There is bound to be some shift in what the typical programmers do.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Language features should be tested with real users using scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly added to a language. There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a decision on a study rather than experience and judgement (including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more data cannot be useful, Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. You don't have science without numbers. Atila But then, how can I keep my delusions and pretend they are fact because I have experience, judgment and, it goes without saying, a great sense of aesthetic ?
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. You don't have science without numbers. WTF?
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:46:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote: But then, how can I keep my delusions and pretend they are fact because I have experience, judgment and, it goes without saying, a great sense of aesthetic ? You will keep your delusions and pretend they are fact until you take a course on the philosophy of science. The debate about qualitative and quantitative methods is long forgone. If you want a retake on that you will have to travel 50 years back in time.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On 2015-03-22 at 11:03, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. You don't have science without numbers. WTF? Heh, everything is measurable, but sometimes the chosen metrics and analysis are just ridiculous and not worth the paper they are printed on, even though all rules of scientific reasoning were followed. :)
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Language features should be tested with real users using scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly added to a language. There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a decision on a study rather than experience and judgement (including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more data cannot be useful, Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. You don't have science without numbers. Atila
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 10:24:16 UTC, FG wrote: On 2015-03-22 at 11:03, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. You don't have science without numbers. WTF? Heh, everything is measurable, but sometimes the chosen metrics and analysis are just ridiculous and not worth the paper they are printed on, even though all rules of scientific reasoning were followed. :) Almost right. Even a well conducted quantitative study might be misleading because it measures correlation and not causality. Causality is hard nut to crack and it will in the end hang on our beliefs in the methodology, the study, the tools, the objects being studied, the people conducting the studies and the already accepted assumptions in the field (established theories which might be wrong) etc. So in essence, science is a belief system (not all that different from religion, although the contrary is often claimed). This all becomes easier to reason about if people give up the idea that science represents the truth. It does not, it presents models that are hypothetical in nature. These may be useful or not useful, but are usually incomplete and somewhat incorrect... In medical sciences correlation based models can be very useful, or very harmful (when incomplete on critical parameters such as negative effects of radiation). In the design field the theories used are applied to a future unknown setting so correlation has very low value and insight in causality has a very high value. Meaning: a somewhat flawed high level model about how human beings think and react, about causality, might lead to better design than a more limited and correct low level model of how the brain works based on correlation. Whether everything is measurable depends on what you mean. You might say that qualitative studies involves measuring because everything you perceive are measurements. In the real world, the data (what you have collected) will usually be inadequate for what is being claimed. After all, it is a society of publish or perish. So you need many independent studies to get something solid, but how many fields can produce that? Only the big ones, right?
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote: So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny 'scientific' approaches when their value remains yet to be proven. I sense a recursive problem here...
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based controls that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so frustrated at the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the thing out the window. But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a script. Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means complex operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives with greater expressiveness. Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you can't abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of keyboard shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the realm of micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open submenu, click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've seen attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be useful.) You can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is bound to what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of mouse interactions the same way you can take a bash script and parametrize it to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed commands did. Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive point-and-grunt. T In general I'm in agreement with you, but I think there *is* a place for more visual structure than a terminal editing a text-file can give you (essentially 1-D or maybe 1.5D, whatever that means). Some models/data/tasks are inherently more intuitive and quicker to work with in 2D.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote: Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic words? Cf.: There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six END PARAGRAPH... Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact representation is required, especially in programming: Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING. Just for fun. A visualization of the problem from 2007 (I doubt there was breakthrough meanwhile) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzJ0CytAsec Piotrek
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote: On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both. Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my computer Find me the best deal on a S6 and it will go find it. I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for everyday tasks like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good Enough(tm), but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more expressive than the keyboard. Find me the best deal on a S6 is only a little more complex than make me a cup of coffee. Fine for doing predefined tasks but questionable as an ubiquitous input method. It's hard enough for mathematicians to dictate a theorem without using any symbolic notation. There is too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in speech to make it a reliable and easy input method for all tasks. Even in your example: You say: Find me the best deal on a S6. I hear: Fine me the best teal on A.S. six. Computer: Are you looking for steel? Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic words? Cf.: There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six END PARAGRAPH... Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact representation is required, especially in programming: Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING. I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress. For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic with natural voice processing.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:10:37PM +, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: [...] But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a script. Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means complex operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives with greater expressiveness. Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you can't abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of keyboard shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the realm of micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open submenu, click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've seen attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be useful.) You can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is bound to what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of mouse interactions the same way you can take a bash script and parametrize it to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed commands did. Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive point-and-grunt. T In general I'm in agreement with you, but I think there *is* a place for more visual structure than a terminal editing a text-file can give you (essentially 1-D or maybe 1.5D, whatever that means). Some models/data/tasks are inherently more intuitive and quicker to work with in 2D. Certainly, some tasks are more suited for 2D, or even 3D, manipulation than editing a text file, say. But just because task X is more profitably manipulated with a 2D interface, does not imply that *every* task is better manipulated the same way. But at a more fundamental level, it's not really about text vs. graphics or 1D (1.5D) vs. 2D. It's about the ability to abstract, that's currently missing from today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would willingly leave my text-based interfaces behind if you could show me a GUI that gives me the same (or better) abstraction power as the expressiveness of a CLI script, for example. Contemporary GUIs fail me on the following counts: 1) Expressiveness: there is no simple way of conveying complex ideas like from here until the first line that contains the word 'END', replace all occurrences of 'x' with 'y'. A single sed command could accomplish this, whereas using contemporary GUI idioms you'd need to invent a morass of hard-to-navigate nested submenus. 2) Speed: I can type the sed command in far less time than it takes to move my hand to the mouse, move the cursor across the screen, and click through said morass of nested submenus to select the requisite checkboxes to express what I want to do. 3) Abstraction power: I can parametrize said sed command, and put a whole collection of such commands into a script, that I can thereafter refer to by name to execute the same commands again, *without having to remember* the individual details of said commands. 4) Annotative power: As somebody else pointed out, I can add comments to a script explaining what is needed to perform task X, and why the given steps were chosen for that purpose. This alleviates the need to memorize obscure details about the system that you don't really care about to get your job done, as well as serve to jog your memory when something went wrong and you need to recall why things were done this way and how you might be able to fix it. I simply cannot see how these kinds of meta-annotations can even remotely be shoehorned into contemporary GUI idioms. 5) Precision: Even when working with graphical data, I prefer text-based interfaces where practical, not because text is the best way to work with them -- it's quite inefficient, in fact -- but because I can specify the exact coordinates of object X and the exact displacement(s) I desire, rather than fight with the inherently imprecise mouse movement and getting myself a wrist aneurysm trying to position object X precisely in a GUI. I have yet to see a GUI that allows you to specify things in a precise way without essentially dropping back to a text-based interface (e.g., an input
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both. Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my computer Find me the best deal on a S6 and it will go find it. I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for everyday tasks like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good Enough(tm), but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more expressive than the keyboard. Find me the best deal on a S6 is only a little more complex than make me a cup of coffee. Fine for doing predefined tasks but questionable as an ubiquitous input method. It's hard enough for mathematicians to dictate a theorem without using any symbolic notation. There is too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in speech to make it a reliable and easy input method for all tasks. Even in your example: You say: Find me the best deal on a S6. I hear: Fine me the best teal on A.S. six. Computer: Are you looking for steel? Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic words? Cf.: There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six END PARAGRAPH... Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact representation is required, especially in programming: Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On 2015-03-21 at 20:13, Joakim wrote: Find me the best deal on a S6 [...] Just tried it on google's voice search, it thought I said Find me the best deal on a last sex the first time I tried. Obviously Google tries to converge the query with what is usually searched for. OTOH that's one of the areas you probably wouldn't want to browse through using a voice interface. :) There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six END PARAGRAPH... Just read that out normally and it'll be smart enough to know that the upper-case terms you highlighted are punctuation marks and not part of the sentence, by using various grammar and word frequency heuristics. In the rare occurrence of real ambiguity, you'll be able to step down to a lower-level editing mode and correct it. Yeah, I've exaggerated the problem. The deciding factor will be the required amount of stepping down to do low-level editing, even with a system supported by good machine learning, considering all the homonyms and words having many meanings. But let's assume that this was solved. I think the remaining END PARAGRAPH, OPEN BRACE or COMMA problem will go away with a compromise: people will just tell stories like they normally do, and let the punctuation be added automatically using AST, interval and intonation analyses. And the dying breed of writers who care about punctuation very much will continue using keyboards. Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact representation is required, especially in programming: Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING. As Paulo alludes to, the current textual representation of programming languages is optimized for keyboard entry. Programming languages themselves will change to allow fluid speech input. That's true, programming languages will have to change. For example the distinction between lower and upper case is artificial and it was the biggest stumbling block in that video as well. That will have to go away along with other stuff. But if you look at my function definition, it doesn't have that, nor does it use parentheses, semicolons, etc., so it's voice-ready. My question is: at which point would that be considered an efficient method to define a program's component that we would choose to use instead of the current succinct symbolic notation? We still have some work to do to get these speech recognition engines there, but once we do, the entire visual interface to your computer will have to be redone to best suit voice input and *nobody* will use touch, mice, _or_ keyboards after that. Yeah, right, people will create drawings with voice commands. :) Every interface has its rightful domain and voice ain't best for everything. Or do you mean that touch will go away but instead people will be waving their hands around?
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress. For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic with natural voice processing. People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive. Unless you've been alive for a few centuries, they still could be right. ;)
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote: On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both. Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my computer Find me the best deal on a S6 and it will go find it. I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for everyday tasks like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good Enough(tm), but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more expressive than the keyboard. Find me the best deal on a S6 is only a little more complex than make me a cup of coffee. Fine for doing predefined tasks but questionable as an ubiquitous input method. It's hard enough for mathematicians to dictate a theorem without using any symbolic notation. There is too much ambiguity and room for interpretation in speech to make it a reliable and easy input method for all tasks. Even in your example: You say: Find me the best deal on a S6. I hear: Fine me the best teal on A.S. six. Computer: Are you looking for steel? Just tried it on google's voice search, it thought I said Find me the best deal on a last sex the first time I tried. After 3-4 more tries- a sex, nsx, etc- it finally got it right. But it never messed up anything before on, only the intentionally difficult S6, which requires context to understand. Ask that question to the wrong person and they'd have no idea what you meant by S6 either. My point is that the currently deployed, state-of-the-art systems are already much better than what you'd hear or what you think the computer would guess, and soon they will get that last bit right too. Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic words? Cf.: There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six END PARAGRAPH... Just read that out normally and it'll be smart enough to know that the upper-case terms you highlighted are punctuation marks and not part of the sentence, by using various grammar and word frequency heuristics. In the rare occurrence of real ambiguity, you'll be able to step down to a lower-level editing mode and correct it. Mixing languages is already hellish with keyboards and will be a lot easier with speech recognition. Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. Put a headset on and speak a bit lower and nobody watching will know what you're saying or who you're saying it to. Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact representation is required, especially in programming: Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING. As Paulo alludes to, the current textual representation of programming languages is optimized for keyboard entry. Programming languages themselves will change to allow fluid speech input. On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:13:13 UTC, Piotrek wrote: Just for fun. A visualization of the problem from 2007 (I doubt there was breakthrough meanwhile) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzJ0CytAsec Got a couple minutes into that before I knew current speech recognition is much better, as it has progressed by leaps and bounds over the intervening eight years. Doesn't mean it's good enough to throw away your keyboard yet, but it's nowhere near that bad anymore. On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:47:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: It's about the ability to abstract, that's currently missing from today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would willingly leave my text-based interfaces behind if you could show me a GUI that gives me the same (or better) abstraction power as the expressiveness of a CLI script, for example. Contemporary GUIs fail me on the following counts: 1) Expressiveness: there is no simple way of conveying complex --snip-- 5) Precision: Even when working with graphical data, I prefer text-based interfaces where practical, not because text is the best way to work with them -- it's quite inefficient, in fact -- but because I can specify the exact coordinates of object X and the exact displacement(s) I desire, rather than fight with the inherently imprecise mouse movement and getting myself a wrist aneurysm trying to position object X precisely in
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress. For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic with natural voice processing. People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 07:13:10PM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:47:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: It's about the ability to abstract, that's currently missing from today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would willingly leave my text-based interfaces behind if you could show me a GUI that gives me the same (or better) abstraction power as the expressiveness of a CLI script, for example. Contemporary GUIs fail me on the following counts: 1) Expressiveness: there is no simple way of conveying complex --snip-- 5) Precision: Even when working with graphical data, I prefer text-based interfaces where practical, not because text is the best way to work with them -- it's quite inefficient, in fact -- but because I can specify the exact coordinates of object X and the exact displacement(s) I desire, rather than fight with the inherently imprecise mouse movement and getting myself a wrist aneurysm trying to position object X precisely in a GUI. I have yet to see a GUI that allows you to specify things in a precise way without essentially dropping back to a text-based interface (e.g., an input field that requires you to type in numbers... which is actually not a bad solution; many GUIs don't even provide that, but instead give you the dreaded slider control which is inherently imprecise and extremely cumbersome to use. Or worse, the text box with the inconveniently-small 5-pixel up/down arrows that changes the value by 0.1 per mouse click, thereby requiring an impractical number of clicks to get you to the right value -- if you're really unlucky, you can't even type in an explicit number but can only use those microscopic arrows to change it). A lot of this is simply that you are a different kind of computer user than the vast majority of computer users. You want to drive a Mustang with a manual transmission and a beast of an engine, whereas most computer users are perfectly happy with their Taurus with automatic transmission. A touch screen or WIMP GUI suits their mundane tasks best, while you need more expressiveness and control so you use the CLI. Of course. But we're talking here about interfaces for *programmers*, not for your average Joe, for whom a pretty GUI with a button or two would suffice. The great promise of voice interfaces is that they will _both_ be simple enough for casual users and expressive enough for power users, while being very efficient and powerful for both. Call me a skeptic, but I'll believe this promise when I see it. We still have some work to do to get these speech recognition engines there, but once we do, the entire visual interface to your computer will have to be redone to best suit voice input and nobody will use touch, mice, _or_ keyboards after that. This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day will ever come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on natural language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say that heuristics can solve this, I call BS on that. Heuristics are bug-prone and unreliable (because otherwise they'd be algorithms!), precisely because they fail to capture the essence of the problem, but are merely crutches to get us mostly there in lieu of an actual solution. The inherent ambiguity in natural language comes not from some kind of inherent flaw as most people tend to believe, but it's actually a side-effect of the brain's ability at context-sensitive comprehension. The exact same utterance, spoken in different contexts, can mean totally different things, and the brain has no problem with that (provided it is given sufficient context, of course). The brain is also constantly optimizing itself -- if it can convey its intended meaning in fewer, simpler words, it will prefer to do that instead of going through the effort of uttering the full phrase. This is one of the main factors behind language change, which happens over time and is mostly unconscious. Long, convoluted phrases, if spoken often enough, tend to contract into shorter, sometimes ambiguous, utterances, as long as there is sufficient context to disambiguate. This is why we have a tendency toward acronyms -- the brain is optimizing away the long utterance in preference to a short acronym, which, based on the context of a group of speakers who mutually share similar contexts (e.g., computer lingo), is unambiguous, but may very well be ambiguous in a wider context. If I talk to you about UFCS, you'd immediately understand what I was talking about, but if I said that to my wife, she would have no idea what I just said -- she may not even realize it's an acronym, because it sounds like a malformed sentence you The only way to disambiguate this kind of context-specific utterance is to *share* in that context in the first place. Talk to a Java programmer about UFCS, and he probably wouldn't know what you just said either, unless he has been reading up on D. The only way
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 21:46:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day will ever come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on natural language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say that heuristics can solve this, I call BS on that. Heuristics are bug-prone and unreliable (because otherwise they'd be algorithms!), precisely because they fail to capture the essence of the problem, but are merely crutches to get us mostly there in lieu of an actual solution. Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will change. In the beginning of the web the search engines had trouble matching anything but exact phrases, now they are capable of figuring out what you probably wanted. Take music composition, people still write notes explicitly as discrete symbols, yet others compose music by recording a song, and then manipulating it (i.e. auto tune). So, even though you can do pitch recognition many probably use discrete interfaces like keyboard or a mouse for writing music, yet new forms of music and composition has come with the ability to process audio in a more intuitive, evolutionary fashion. Same thing is likely to happen with programming, e.g. a different models for computation or at least new ways to modify existing components. Like neural simulations, adaptive systems, fuzzy logic etc... You also have areas like program synthesis, genetic programming etc, where the computer itself generates the program to fit a specified result. When the computer is capable of that you might have a more top down programming model where you just keep adding constraints until you are happy with the result.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will ni change. In the beginning of the web the search engines had trouble matching anything but exact phrases, now they are capable of figuring out what you probably wanted. As you implicitly recognize later, it's not either/or, in the same way that spreadsheets (ugh) constituted a new way of programming and people continued to program conventionally similar kinds of tasks even as spreadsheets exploded in usage (and now we are back to finding it often more convenient to write code again, plus the robustness that never went away). HS Teoh is right about context, and the superiority of the written word for organizing and expressing thinking at a very high level. The nature of human memory and perception means that is unlikely to change very soon, if ever. Dr Iain Mcgilchrist (The Master and His Emissary) is very good on context, BTW. You also have areas like program synthesis, genetic programming etc, where the computer itself generates the program to fit a specified result. When the computer is capable of that you might have a more top down programming model where you just keep adding constraints until you are happy with the result. No doubt these techniques will continue to grow in usefulness (I certainly hope so, and am making that bet), but the ultimate implications depend on your conception of what creativity is.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On 3/19/2015 10:46 PM, deadalnix wrote: I let this here. Very interesting and relevant to anyone here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZ-QSLQIB8 It's nearly an hour long. Got a TL;DW ?
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:14:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/19/2015 10:46 PM, deadalnix wrote: I let this here. Very interesting and relevant to anyone here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZ-QSLQIB8 It's nearly an hour long. Got a TL;DW ? Language features should be tested with real users using scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly added to a language. This means using tests groups with different types of backgrounds, applying the features in several situations, devising specific set of measurable targets and applying the whole statistic analysis to the results. For example, instead of having an online forum which syntax would be desired for the new feature X, have the whole set of options implemented and see which of them achieves better results with the respective study groups. An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those that follow C like syntax. There are quite a few other examples. Also the mention that as far as the researcher is aware, only Microsoft is pursuing such studies for language features. Don Syme is in the audience and gives an example how they did it for .NET generics. -- Paulo
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
Thanks!
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On 3/20/2015 3:55 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote: So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny 'scientific' approaches when their value remains yet to be proven. True. Scientific studies of human behavior are notoriously difficult to remove hidden biases from.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On 21/03/2015 8:40 a.m., weaselcat wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:04:20 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. I wish there was a blend of modern IDEs with the editing/customizability power of emacs/vim. mono-d and DDT's utilities are far ahead of anything available for D in emacs/vim, but the actual IDEs themselves are difficult to work with. You guys are giving me ideas...
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Language features should be tested with real users using scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly added to a language. There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a decision on a study rather than experience and judgement (including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more data cannot be useful, if thoughtfully considered. The problem is that people tend to emphasize tangible hard data over sometimes more important but less easy to measure factors - the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost 'because that is where the light is'. So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny 'scientific' approaches when their value remains yet to be proven. Laeeth.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 12:07:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 12:00:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: At end of the study, the groups using the Algol based syntax will deliver less bugs. I think language syntax design these days should include the IDE. E.g. Dart's syntax is nothing special and not good at preventing bugs in itself, but the Dart syntax works very well when used with the Dart editor (based on Eclipse). These days it probably is a mistake to design a language syntax without considering what kind of IDE design the language is supposed to be used with. Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. Thankfully the situation has improved a lot in the last decade. -- Paulo
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 18:31:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive point-and-grunt. As for CLIs regaining their central place in the world of computing, in a world going towards speech recognition and touch interfaces, I very much doubt CLI use will increase. What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both. Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my computer Find me the best deal on a S6 and it will go find it. As for touch, seems like a dead-end to me, far less expressive than anything else and really only geared for rudimentary interaction. It may always be there but you likely won't use it much. I do think some sort of hand gesture-based interface will stick around for when voice isn't expressive enough, ie you'll still want to use your hands when painting: http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/19/jaw-dropping-magic-leap-demo/ That video is not the way it will be done, as waving your arms around Minority Report-style is way too much effort, but something akin to the small finger movements I make on my touch-based trackpad, but in 3D, will likely be it.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both. Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my computer Find me the best deal on a S6 and it will go find it. I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for everyday tasks like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good Enough(tm), but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more expressive than the keyboard. As for touch, seems like a dead-end to me, far less expressive than anything else and really only geared for rudimentary interaction. It may always be there but you likely won't use it much. Yeah, it's just another variation of point-and-grunt. Except the grunt part is replaced with tap. :-P I do think some sort of hand gesture-based interface will stick around for when voice isn't expressive enough, ie you'll still want to use your hands when painting: http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/19/jaw-dropping-magic-leap-demo/ That video is not the way it will be done, as waving your arms around Minority Report-style is way too much effort, but something akin to the small finger movements I make on my touch-based trackpad, but in 3D, will likely be it. You might be on to something. Manipulation of 3D holograms via hand motion detection perhaps might be what will eventually work best. T -- Maybe is a strange word. When mom or dad says it it means yes, but when my big brothers say it it means no! -- PJ jr.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those that follow C like syntax. That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language, which is optimised for bug creation.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 11:48:20 UTC, w0rp wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those that follow C like syntax. That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language, which is optimised for bug creation. I said scientific studies, not asking joe/jane developer. Pick a random set of people without programming skills, using imaginary language X, with two types of syntax's to code a set of tasks in separate groups, one for each syntax. Measure each group behavior using proven analysis methods. At end of the study, the groups using the Algol based syntax will deliver less bugs. -- Paulo
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 12:00:35 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: At end of the study, the groups using the Algol based syntax will deliver less bugs. I think language syntax design these days should include the IDE. E.g. Dart's syntax is nothing special and not good at preventing bugs in itself, but the Dart syntax works very well when used with the Dart editor (based on Eclipse). These days it probably is a mistake to design a language syntax without considering what kind of IDE design the language is supposed to be used with.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 11:48:20 UTC, w0rp wrote: On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those that follow C like syntax. That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language, which is optimised for bug creation. The guy explain that for beginner it is worse, but after 3+ years of experience, C syntax wins. Most likely because C style has become a de facto standard, and that the benefit of standardization outweigh the initial confusion. He explains that the same goes for strong typing.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based controls that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so frustrated at the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the thing out the window. But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a script. Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means complex operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives with greater expressiveness. Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you can't abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of keyboard shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the realm of micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open submenu, click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've seen attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be useful.) You can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is bound to what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of mouse interactions the same way you can take a bash script and parametrize it to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed commands did. Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive point-and-grunt. T When I use GUIs, my knowledge of keyboard shortcuts coupled with the mouse actions is no different than top gamer playing a FPS/RTS game. Sure, GUIs might not beat CLIs in terms of scriptability, but GUIs coupled with REPLs sure do the job pretty well. When I am on Mac OS X and Windows, reaching out for the CLI means using developer tools only available via the console or automating administration tasks. On the other hand when at any other UNIX flavours besides Mac OS X, it seems the CLI is unavoidable. As for CLIs regaining their central place in the world of computing, in a world going towards speech recognition and touch interfaces, I very much doubt CLI use will increase. -- Paulo
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:23:27 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive point-and-grunt. Oberon TUI was really nice, as it combines point-and-click with CLI expressivenes. not only you can type command almost anywhere and immediately execute it, but you can combine commands in tools, parameterize commands with marked window, selected text (those were completely independend things), simple text and so on. even window actions like close, save and such was ordinary commands, simply printed at window header. Oberon Gadgets was an extension of that system, where buttons and so on were simply nicely drawn area that still executes command on click. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based controls that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so frustrated at the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the thing out the window. But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful advantage: clip Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. While I may not share you optimism for the future, I do agree the CLI is almost always better:o) One big advantage to CLI stuff is that when you come up against some tricky configuration, or rarely used command, you can write a little script (with comments) describing how to do it (and WHY you did it that way). Very handy for those tasks that you end up doing once every X months, and always forget the details of in between. How do you do that with a GUI? Make a video or open up OpenOffice/MS Word and start taking screen shots. Painful stuff. Same goes for configuration files which beat GUI-based configuration hands down. Having said all that having IDE-like, language aware, code-completion and background compilation, and a good debugger are a big plus for productivity in many cases.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based controls that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so frustrated at the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the thing out the window. But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a script. Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means complex operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives with greater expressiveness. Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you can't abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of keyboard shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the realm of micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open submenu, click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've seen attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be useful.) You can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is bound to what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of mouse interactions the same way you can take a bash script and parametrize it to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed commands did. Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur. It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive point-and-grunt. T -- Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares? -- Miquel van Smoorenburg
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:04:20 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree. Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore. being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone emacs/vim. I wish there was a blend of modern IDEs with the editing/customizability power of emacs/vim. mono-d and DDT's utilities are far ahead of anything available for D in emacs/vim, but the actual IDEs themselves are difficult to work with.
Re: [Semi OT] The programming language wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:31:06 +, Paulo Pinto wrote: As for CLIs regaining their central place in the world of computing, in a world going towards speech recognition and touch interfaces, I very much doubt CLI use will increase. this is another overhyped trendy blah-blah, like cloud computing. such interfaces are for casual users. sure, when i want to simply listen music or watch a movie, it's easier to tell that or point it with my finger. but if i want to use my computer for something more complex, typing on keyboard is simply faster and less error-prone than speaking. especially if you cut off that stupid mouse. ;-) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
