Re:Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)
by wuschel on Friday April 21, 2017 @04:07PM
(#14168992)
> 50 years there won't be that many application developers left either.
I like your comment, but the crystal ball statement in the last sentence is a bit too much.
Re:Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)
by fomojola on Friday April 21, 2017 @10:00PM
(#14170747)
There are still blacksmiths, out there doing specialty work. There will always be application developers. And yes, I may have the timeframe wrong. However, the rate at which things are accelerating I really do think most of the simple stuff will be gone.
Re:Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)
by ScottBurson on Friday April 21, 2017 @05:55PM
(#14169738)
I think it's probably right. 50 years is a long time.
Re:Why MIT Switched from Scheme to Python (2009)
by ams6110 on Friday April 21, 2017 @07:09PM
(#14170158)
I've been coding professionally for 30 years. And programming isn't really much different now than it was 30 years ago. The tools are better, yes. But we're still sitting at desks in front of a screen, entering code into computers as text, with keyboards.
Perhaps there will be a threshold reached where suddenly that goes away. But I'm not holding my breath.
It kept the focus on the underlying principles (every programming language is a set of primitives, a means of combination and a means of abstraction; recursion; interpreters; etc) that were powerful enough to let you pick up any other language without getting bogged down in the details. An opinionated language like Python seems like the wrong choice to teach fundamental structure (it WAS Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs), but if they aren't approaching it from that angle and are looking more at application development then that's probably ok.
You can pick up enough of any language or framework from the manual, and google/stackoverflow/o'reilly will give you fine points/quirks, but that fundamental base that allows you to look at ANY program in ANY language and be able to reduce it to first principles is (IMO) a necessary component of any computer scientist's toolkit and the best insurance against the continuous rise of packaged software that is continuously burning the short grass in most software development.
I remember reading somewhere that focusing on application development is like training blacksmiths: you end up with people skilled at specific techniques but extremely vulnerable to "industrial" software that replicates the techniques and eliminates the need for custom development.
There are not that many blacksmiths left, and the truth is in 50 years there won't be that many application developers left either.