Why Isn’t Programming Futuristic?

Re:Why Isn’t Programming Futuristic? by jdmitch on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @06:22PM (#6602152)

I've wondered if it would take a 'non-programmer' to develop a new metaphor/representation of programming that is more futuristic. The OP has some interesting suggestions of characteristics that 'futuristic programming' would have, including safe object traversal, ubiquitous object extensions, and code transport, but these are still conceived within the paradigm that we think of programming today. Maybe programming needs an outsider to help us start over conceptually?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Isn’t Programming Futuristic? by marcosdumay on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @09:32PM (#6602906)

If so, we are doomed. The set of non-programmers that can competently think about formal rules is getting smaller by the day. And it'll only decrease as long as computation remains relevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Isn’t Programming Futuristic? by Glench on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @11:57PM (#6603331)

There is a catch-22 here in that in order to come up with new ideas, you need to be fairly well-versed in what kinds of things computers can do but can't have been indoctrinated into assuming programming has to work a certain way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Isn’t Programming Futuristic? by Sirex on Friday October 25, 2013 @09:40AM (#6611495)

That is not a catch-22, that's a filter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Isn’t Programming Futuristic? by Glench on Tuesday November 05, 2013 @11:07AM (#6675803)

I'm saying in order to come up with new types of programming, you need to already know about how programming works currently, which limits your thinking.

[ Parent | on HN ]