[geeks] Software Bloat

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Monday, December 17, 2001 at 19:19:47 (+0000), David Cantrell wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [geeks] Software Bloat
>
> I don't think it matters too much.  To a non-programmer - like my parents,
> or, I imagine, Joshua's - then python, guile, lisp, ruby, smalltalk, tcl,
> perl, vb, and any of the other scripting languages, are all equally alien.
> So what if perl lets you get closer to an English sentence, or if ruby is
> more orthogonal, or if smalltalk lets you Do More With Less.

That doesn't quite explain why even a horribly designed language
(language design-wise) has gained so much popularity and use even by
non-programmers (and of course I speak of M$ VisualBasic).  :-)

Literally millions of non-programmers do commonly write quite successful
VB programs and are in effect successful amateur programmers even though
they might not admit it themselves.

>  Doesn't
> matter which one you go for, you've still got to learn logic, basic maths,
> and a whole new language family* when you learn your first programming
> language.

You're certainly right about that!  ;-)

Though it's not so bad as you might think.  People with a basic
education generally do have those skills, though they don't usually
exercise them adequately, especially not after they've completed high
school.

I got my start in the commercial world (well first successful start)
working for a company called Whiz Kids (not the TV show -- we came
first!).  We developed courses and software to help teach kids and sales
types how to use a computer, and included very low-level programming
skills (using BASIC, since we focused on Commodore, Atari, and Apple-//
machines -- it was back in 1983 after all).  Anyone over about 10 years
of age had no trouble figuring out the fundamental concepts of
programming when they were taught in a suitable manner and without
getting too far ahead too quickly.  If we'd been more successful at
meeting the market window for what we had then (i.e. and being
profitable enough to continue to exist) I'd bet a modern version of the
course would still be selling in bookstores everywhere.  The "Dummies"
books are similar, but not nearly so well focused and are often far too
thick -- i.e. too big and daunting, covering way too much.

> OTOH, if we assume that most users won't touch the scripting language and
> that it'll be people like us who use it to write applications for users
> on top of the base of C, then we need to support more than one language.
> I can't stand python, and no doubt the pythonistas can't stand perl, and
> everyone hates java apart from the J2EE fanboys, and ... well, if we *do*
> support only one language, then scheme, common lisp, or smalltalk, in that
> order of preference, would get my vote.

You've got that exactly right too, though again I refer you to the
history of AutoCAD and how/why they ended up settling on one language.

> And to do that they need to be provided with tools *and* the education to
> use them.  The tools ain't a problem.  The education is.  The school-level
> computer education I see here is oriented to making sure the drones know
> how to drive a word processor in dummy mode.

I do have the feeling that's been what's happened in computer education
since I got out of the education business back in about 1984....  :-(

But does this mis-treatment of computer education by public schools
actually deter the average educated person's ability to learn something
about a computer?

I do know that my sister, who had a bit of what passes for computer
education in a public school somewhat after 1984 in one of the best
education systems in the world (Saskatchewan) is in effect afraid to try
to learn more about how computers work and how to make them do what she
wants them to do (though no doubt now that she's a mother she'll have
some incentive to go further).  She certainly has the math and logic
skills, but hasn't had the incentive to learn anything about
programming.  (my being 3000 miles away from her probably doesn't help! :-)

> > You're right about that first sentence, at least according to every
> > Emacs detractor I've ever heard from!  ;-)
> 
> I'm an emacs detractor, and I don't think it's overly bloated for what it
> does.  The 20Mb that it takes on my box is 20Mb crammed with features.

That's good to hear (though now I'll have to invent some new platitude
to utter)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods at acm.org>;  <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;  <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>