ericHosick

Will any of this really make any difference? I feel that, in the long run, it won't.

Edit: And to further clarify my question (since I'm being down-voted for a very legitimate question)... I know a lot of smart people and none of them (as in 0 of them) seem to take any notice to these conversations. There is a lot of apathy towards mass surveillance.

Sure, the conversation comes up a lot on HN but HN is not a very good sample of the general public.

I'm also surprised at this one.

The software fulfillment process has a lot of issues.

We are stuck in a local maxima and jumping the chasm to the next maxima with ideas like "what comes after programming languages" is really really hard.

Sadly, one of the biggest hurdles is self preservation because software developers don't want "software development accessible to the widest part of our society". I hate to say it, but there are Luddites among us.

So, I tend to agree that a startup is the wrong vehicle for this.

> I think we have to start with reading.

I agree with this point. People understand things differently. There should be multiple ways for people to read and understand software programs. Unfortunately, there is only one major way now and that is with source code.

I do think that tools like IFTTT are moving us towards more accessibility but it is a small step.

I like what you are working. Keep the conversation going.

Perhaps making something familiar helps people see and understand the underlying technology better?

There is mention of tools like group estimates which improve the estimation effort (according to the article).

There isn't much mention of the estimates you can go for:

1) Accurate but not reliable

2) Reliable but not accurate

I think another frustration doctors are feeling today is due to a lack of patient-doctor relationships.

Society views doctors as tools that society has a legal right to.

> If 'cron' suddenly acquired a staff of 40, I would start looking for alternatives.

How accessible is Cron to people?

For the consumer, almost all aspects of computing are becoming ubiquitous: except programming. Tools like those provided by IFTTT are enabling people to do more with their devices.

Someday, programming will also be ubiquitous (it probably won't even be called programming anymore).

As a game, this is really cool.

But when he got to the 4th dimension it didn't make much sense as an explanation (rubble from 3rd dimension showing up in the 4th).

However, if the 4th dimension was time, then you would walk back (or forward) in time to when the wall wasn't there (isn't there anymore cause it is now rubble), move "past the wall", and then walk forward/backward to the original time.

I would probably use the word ability instead of right.

Further, just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should exercise that right.

The fact the conversation is happening means this isn't exactly an open and shut case on social acceptability on reclining.

> Why on HN?

Who knows. Make something up?

He was an amazing and exceptional person. That's good enough for me.

Actually a decent tune here:

https://soundcloud.com/glowdon/jingy-compiler-1#t=6:00

> for example, it's pretty clear that pesticides are causing significant problems for bee populations

You are attempting to refute what was said by replacing it with a different argument. What you are touching on is what should happen as a result of theft and/or damage to property. I was pointing out that OPs original statement could be equally valid when reversed.

> "minimizes their contributions back to the society they're benefiting greatly from"

Or it could be that society is greatly benefiting from them: the people and companies that make the goods and services.

I agree that telling anyone to do anything doesn't mean they will do it (change their habits).

However, educating people does allow them to make better decisions.

Rules themselves aren't always the best/optimal/safest solution either and being loose may be the best solution.

For example, in one country in Asia if you are "in-front" of someone you have the right to merge/enter a roadway/get on a free way/change lanes over the person already in the lane. This is just cultural and is so much better than what we have in the west (like the USA). If someone changes lanes and "hits you", it is your fault (unless you were in-front of them).

Makes it so much easier to get on the free way, change lanes, etc. as you only have to worry about what is in front of you. Not what is in front of you, behind you, next to you, etc. There are no "blind spots" etc.

> Zipper merging is only optimal if traffic is already slowed down dramatically.

I agree. But note that the idea of Zipper merging is when traffic has already slowed down, not when it is still moving.

Zipper merging is the optimal solution. People early merge because they think it is the optimal/moral/better/'done my part' solution.

If everyone knew about zipper merging there would be no early mergers (and 'late mergers' don't exist within the context of zipper merging).

Serenity. :-)

I like the idea of providing an alternate value or even alternate flow of execution.

The action to take when dividing by 0 is based on context: it is a business behavior. In my opinion, it is no different than any other business requirement (for example: passwords must be longer than 8 characters, etc.).

A language should allow a developer to configure the action to take when a division by zero occurs within a given context: the default being an exception and/or termination of program execution.

I figured there was some kind of temporal timey whimey thing going on because the three stooges pre-date red Lamborghinis.

I also see Cucumber as a way of gluing specifications with implementation allowing you to regression test specifications.

You can end up with a very domain specific testing "language" (DSTL?) enabling developers and domain experts to start describing a lot of different behavior (specifications) to see if the current implementation supports the behavior.

If current implementation does not support the behavior, then you now have a specification to implement the behavior.

There are very scalable ways to lecture (enable learning) such as student centered learning (called active learning in the post). These are both cost effective and result in better learning outcomes.

Lectures are omnipresent for many reasons. One is because it is a lot easier to stand up in front of the class and just spew out knowledge than to take the time to understand what the students need in a class and adjust lectures appropriately.

> Why bother spending 30 minutes looking over this stuff and filing it for taxes? That is the sign of hugely dis-functional micro-payments model (unfortunately).

It may also be a symptom of compulsory fees imposed by a third party.

I really like Jekyll and use it for both my website and blog. It really is a great product that is easy to use. Thanks!

I dump stuff in one big TextEdit/Notepad file that sits on my desktop. It is really easy to arrange stuff in it, take notes for meetings, etc. TextEdit/Notepad loads really really fast. I can move stuff out of it easily (say contact information into my phone) and every once in a while I clean it up.

I've tried so many other things but a single text file sitting on my desktop just seems to work really well.

I totally agree.

Answering questions empathetically takes a lot of effort.

> Stop arguing over how other people create software; Ship Code instead.

Electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, architectural design and the medical profession, to name a few, have bodies of knowledge they are required to use.

Is it really a good idea for software developers to say "stop arguing over how other people create software; Ship Code instead" considering we don't have any industry standard bodies of knowledge?

This looks really cool!

Is there a reason why you have something like:

    newGame ::= a game of Wump the Wumpus;

as opposed to:

    newGame is a game of Wump the Wumpus.

I wrote the blog post but this one and the one you linked to weren't submitted by me nor do I know who they are. I only found out via an analytics spike and asking someone who emailed me some VPL additions that it was submitted again.

Sorry it was added twice.

> That's an amazingly comprehensive list.

Thank you. There is so much we could do with this list and would like to add more meta-data. We have someone who spends part of their time finding VPLs and adding them. When we run out of VPLs we can find (and there seem to be so many), we'll try to organize them a little better than alphabetical.

> I'm glad this is still being updated.

We are too. There are a lot of languages out there and as we find them we add them (we have someone who is searching and adding them).

> If nothing else, this screenshot display ought to put to rest the idea that visual programming makes programming "intuitive" or "easy to understand".... most of these screenshots are just as opaque at first glance as any block of code is.

I'm not sure if I totally agree with your conclusion of what the VPL - Snapshot page is bringing to the table. I think this page shows that there are many different ways people form mental models. Not only in the domain of textual languages but even within the domain of Visual languages.

The intuitive or easy part comes from people being able to program a computer using the mental models they are most comfortable with.

As for VPLs being tried comprehensively, I think this is true in the case of domain specific VPLs and I think they are becoming more and more main stream. For general purpose, domain agnostic VPLs, I don't think we've even touched the surface.

Process is not immune to entropy.

It is very difficult to assure that even experts don't make mistakes: especially when they are running through the same process again and again. They will, at some point, always make a mistake. Even the worlds most competent doctor is at risk of leaving a scalpel in a patient.

It is possible to lower the risk of such an event occurring which is why we push for best known practices (like enforcing {} syntax on all conditionals (I do), regression testing, etc.) and bodies of knowledge.