Speaking as a Fancy Computer Science Professor at a Fancy Institution of Higher Education who teaches the course on Programming Languages:
-
@inthehands @nikclayton and even a button is increasingly complex - I’m often seeing forms where the button changes state to indicate whether or not you can click if (or if there is some portion of the form you haven’t finished filling out)
But every site does this differently and it is eh not at all obvious often which state the button is in - without attempting to click it
Further many sites have multiple buttons and knowing which to click when is not always obvious (save vs next? Etc)
-
@inthehands @nikclayton I'd actually go so far as to say that Reveal Codes back in the 80s made HTML almost instantly comprehensible, even with emerging complexities like (then-larval) style sheets, in the 90s. And *that* in turn made it possible for me to make the jump to web development as a career when a previous one started to head south -- more so in many ways than having a reasonably decent background in "what the annoying pedants call programming" programming as well.
-
@inthehands @nikclayton and I’ll date myself here but wordprocessors since WordPerfect lost out to Microsoft Word have made it very hard to actually see what formatting/codes are applied where within your text. Often hiding formatting changes in what looks like white space but really hides a change from heading to subheading to body text or from one font to another etc. And to get the text to do what you want means knowing how the final doc is created from the elements (page format etc)
-
@dpnash @nikclayton
All that. I really appreciate all these historical on-ramps — Applesoft BASIC was mine! — that allow a random curious human’s machine interactions to progressively become more and more programming-shaped. -
@inthehands Not sure why you thought that was sarcastic. Trying to form a mental model of how Word interprets formatting instructions ("Why does the formatting change when I collapsed two paragraphs into one?") and then giving instructions to Word based on that mental model meets the definition.
Contrast that with pounding on the keyboard trying to get it to do what you want without understanding what's going on.
-
@nikclayton
I misinferred the sarcasm. Apologies! We seem to be on the same page here, very much so. -
@dpnash @inthehands @nikclayton exactly this.
And removing this from “modern” word processing tools I think was a deep mistake. It makes the whole fixing formatting a point and click nightmare
-
@inthehands I am still partially agreeing with you.
I've referred to spreadsheet gurus as the largest stealth group of functional programmers in the world.But conversely, if you're defining virtually any interaction with a microprocessor as programming, then the word means everything, and thus nothing. There is a qualitative difference between writing C++ or CSS and playing win-solitaire. How to capture that if not the word "programming"?
-
@inthehands @Crell probably worththile at this point to resurrect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNjxe8ShM-8
-
@Crell
Please study the thread’s invitation to think of this term as a continuum, a quality that some activity may possess in greater or lesser quantity, rather than a boundary with an inside and an outside -
@thinkMoult @Crell
This video never gets old.Also in the same general spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
-
@inthehands @vkc personally, I'd consider "programming" the intention to formulate an algorithm (yes I study CS at a uni with a strong focus on theory how could you tell?)
However, in this context, it's hardly relevant: when you take away an asshole's argument, they're just gonna find a new one. And if someone says "HTML isn't programming" with the intent to belittle someone, they're just an asshole and need to be told so. -
@inthehands @vkc additionally: Java is interpreted by the JVM and therefore a scripting language, while Perl is compiled and thus a """real""" programming language. Tell that the next person who tries to belittle "scripting languages".
-
@datarama @inthehands functional languages are not Turing complete? Do you have a link explaining that?
-
@mdione @inthehands *Total* functional languages, specifically, aren't.
(If you only allow total functions in your language, then all functions must be terminating.)
-
@mdione @inthehands As a little personal footnote to this: Reading about total functional programming and experimenting a bit with implementation was one of the things that gave me an appreciation for how very difficult it is to design a language that is non-Turing-complete while also being actually useful.
-
@qsx
(Java is compiled too — JIT-compiled, yes, but it does run as native machine code — unless you disable the JIT compiler and force the JVM to interpret it. But I like the larger spirit of your heckle!)
