Declaration syntax

[Boyd]

On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 20:12:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting getting rid of all plain text, but I'm
>> definitely for replacing most of the text we need to define
>> structural information.
>> 
>> Furthermore, a custom binary implementation wouldn't be a 
>> problem
>> as long as there is a well defined exchange format that all 
>> IDE's
>> would share. This could simply be the code files we use now.
>
> I suppose it depends on the way you're used to working. Me, I 
> don't even
> use GUI's (well, my "GUI" is so bare bones that my manager 
> doesn't even
> understand how I can even begin to use it), much less IDE's, 
> and I
> generally prefer formats that can be processed by generic tools 
> that
> aren't necessarily catered for manipulating code.

Well I mostly learned programming using Borland Delphi, so I'm 
kinda spoiled with GUI goodness.

>> I agree that current alternatives are less than stellar. I 
>> think
>> that's mostly because any attempts either go too far (visual
>> programming), or not nearly far enough (just listing the
>> available objects).
>
> No, I think the issue is that nobody has truly tackled the real 
> problem
> yet. Visual programming is just a misguided attempt at modelling
> computation with physical metaphors, which don't work because 
> they
> utterly fall flat in capturing the sheer, immense complexity of
> computation. Most people don't even understand rudimentary 
> complexity /
> computational theory (and through no fault of theirs: the 
> nature of the
> subject is extremely complex, no pun intended), much less have 
> any sort
> of useful visualization of it that is generically applicable.  
> Listing
> available objects to me is like printing a catalogue of 
> telescopes when
> the task at hand is to study astronomy. Until we shift our 
> attention
> from the toys of syntax and representation to truly capture the 
> nature
> of computation, the current state of things will continue to 
> hold.

Yeah, the whole software engineering field still seems to be in 
its infancy.

>> Unfortunately I don't have anything concrete. Only ideas, that 
>> I
>> will eventually try to work out, when I have the time. (Don't
>> hold your breath)
>> 
>> I do wish that programmers would be more open to such ideas.
>> There is too much pointless bickering about miniscule syntactic
>> changes, yet no one seems to be interested in fixing the 
>> archaic
>> use of plain text files.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality
>
> :-)
>
> We like to bicker about syntax because everybody understands it 
> and has
> direct experience of it. Semantics -- we know we need it, and 
> we've
> dabbled in it some, but nobody really understands it in its 
> entirety, so
> as long as it's Turing-complete (whatever *that* means... :P), 
> that's
> good enough for us. Leave us the time to argue over syntax and 
> how to
> make the "right" coffee.

Oh feel free too keep bickering, I'll even join you:) I was just 
being a bit dramatic, and maybe hoping to find someone with 
similar ideas.

> On a more serious note, though, I classify the use of plain 
> text files
> vs. whatever alternative representation format to be equally 
> trivial as
> bikeshedding over syntax.  The important issues at hand are the
> *semantics* of programming -- how to capture the sheer 
> complexity of
> computation in a way that can make extremely complex 
> computations
> tractable to our limited mental capacity.  The history of the 
> progress
> of programming is keyed on exactly this issue.

It's not exactly the representation format I'm worried about, but 
rather the organization of code.