[OT] the uses of computing

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sunday, 19 October 2014 at 04:55:55 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 23:38:35 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn 
> <digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
> don't you think that we are going in circles now? not that i'm 
> tired of
> this conversation, but i see that we get each other's POVs, and 
> have no
> more arguments to convince each other. ;-)

I guess, when does anyone ever convince anyone else online?  
People usually just throw their arguments at each other and leave 
holding the same opinion. ;)

>> >> I don't read books anymore
>> > even technical ones? ;-)
>> I think the only technical book I've read in the last decade 
>> is Andrei's TDPL, which I bought in print and got about 
>> halfway through.  I've probably read bits and pieces of maybe 
>> five other non-technical books here and there in the same 
>> timespan, which were all given to me as gifts.  I've never 
>> read an ebook, yet I read extensively online.  Books are an 
>> outdated form, now that we have blogs.
> i believe that blog posts and textbooks compliments each other. 
> i
> prefer textbook for learning new language, for example, and 
> read blogs
> to learn some interesting/funny/hidden features.

That may be true now, but soon it will be just blogs.

>> I don't know much about Oberon, but that gadgets UI sounds 
>> like it's still a GUI.
> sure, it's GUI, but with some "consolish" pieces dropped in. 
> you can
> connect components and you can write some textual 
> commands/scripts to
> modify component behavior. best from both worlds! ;-)

The desktop UI paradigm needs to be completely redone, from the 
ground up.  Current desktop GUIs are too limiting and the 
terminal is powerful but antiquated.  The problem is how best to 
combine the two, since one is focused on keyboard input whether 
the other mostly uses trackpad/mouse.  I suspect voice will have 
to be the new input to this new desktop GUI.

>> I actually agree with you that some sort of component system 
>> like that is likely the future, even if it's only ultimately 
>> used to make developers' lives easier and largely unconfigured 
>> by users themselves
> it's simple enough for users to modify. changing layouts by 
> dragging
> components, embedding components into components and so on. 
> this things
> are mostly "visual" and easy.
>
> people love to customize their working environment if it's easy
> enough. ;-)

I agree that customization should be made really easy, but what 
percentage of users ever configure their settings themselves now? 
  I bet it's a negligible percentage.  What I think is more likely 
is that they will pay someone to configure the component desktop 
you envision to suit them, but that person won't necessarily be a 
developer, more likely a power user.

>> though I haven't looked much into the complex historical 
>> reasons why it hasn't happened yet.
> 'cause so-called "software industry" is not ready to die yet. 
> ;-) with
> proper component system there will be no much sense in selling
> "applications". and selling components is much harder: how many 
> people
> will buy "e-mail data source component"? it's not even visual!
>
> and selling "e-mail reader" is worthless, 'cause people will
> deconstruct it to basic parts and build their own 
> "application", and
> will not buy "shiny new version with improved interface". they 
> will not
> even buy the "full package" if they only need one part of it, 
> like
> "faster e-mail data source component".
>
> so the only way to keep "software bussines" (as we know it) 
> running is
> turning component system back to non-component one. take, for 
> example,
> COM technology (which is badly done, but still usable component
> system). how much software uses COM to decouple application in 
> reusable
> parts? even microsoft realised that this will be disaster and 
> turned
> COM to "advancing scripting interface" instead of truly 
> component
> system.

I agree that the software business likely just didn't do it 
right, but I doubt that's all of it.  Any component system isn't 
going to be as fast and efficient as a bespoke system.  Maybe the 
hardware just wasn't fast enough for that lack of efficiency, but 
with how powerful hardware has gotten these days, maybe we're 
finally ready for it.

>> > have you ever seen BlackBox Component Builder? it's written 
>> > in
>> > Component Pascal, but the basic principles are 
>> > language-independent.
>> > i'm dreaming about BCB with D as base language...
>> No, never heard of it, sounds interesting.
> try it, it's fun and free! ;-) you'll see "component programming
> system" in action. it's not "component OS", but it's great 
> programming
> environment nevertheless. D is almost capable of powering such 
> system.
>
> if only i had more free time and motivation... creating 
> something
> BCB-like can be that "killer app" D needs.

I've loaded up a chapter from this pdf book about it:

http://www.cslab.pepperdine.edu/warford/ComputingFundamentals/

I'll take a look.