David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/15/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>Howard Chu (hyc@symas.com) on 2/15/08 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done in a higher level language. I'm saying
>>that I would prefer not to waste cycles re-discovering optimizations each time my
>>code is executed. I'd prefer to pay all of the cost of optimization once, and then
>>just let the code run without any introspection/virtualization overhead.
>
>So there are two issues here:
>
>1. You're not an average programmer - average programmers are not as good at optimization and are probably lazier

Those folks should find another career then, one where their aptitude will allow them to be excellent instead of just average.

>2. Some things are impossible using static optimizations that are trivial when you have run time information

The obvious solution is to build systems that allow all of the optimization results to be persisted into a backing store and then have all the introspection turned off from that point on.

>>>>* To maximize programmer productivity, future programming >models must be more
>>>>human-centric than the conventional focus on hardware or >applications.
>>>>
>>>>Kinda like what I touched on before, designing programming >languages whose input
>>>>tokens aren't character-based. Aside from that it's all >bunk. 3000+ years ago a
>>>>guy named Hercules had to clean out the Augean stables. >Today mucking horse stalls
>>>>is still a dirty job. That's the nature of the job.
>>>
>>>Some things are easier in python than in C though...
>>
>>I guess. It just strikes me that you can go too far here. >Make a job so easy that
>>any idiot can do it, and you'll wind up with lots of >products created by idiots.
>
>That's right, and that's economics for you. Programming has already evolved from
>a specialist activity to one that is easier and more approachable (ASM-->C-->C++/Java-->Python/Ruby).
>That trend will continue, so I think making parallel programming easier is the right idea.
>
>I think Intel would be more than happy to trade 5-10mm2 of silicon for letting
>programmers use their hardware more easily.

That's the wrong approach. It's the same thinking that Hollywood uses. Rather than dumbing down your offerings to make them accessible to more people, you should be educating more people to elevate them to a level of understanding for your products.

Back in the 80s Apple IIs and Commodores all came with built-in BASIC interpreters. It pretty much went without saying that if you were going to own a computer, you were going to learn how to program it. Compared to the switch-operated, paper-tape/punch-card driven machines that came before, those machines were already extremely easy to use. In fact, I'd say they were *sufficiently* easy to use. If there was any usability gap, it was up to the people to bridge that gap, and learn. From the millions of personal computers sold in that era, we got hundreds of thousands of motivated, competent programmers.

The fact that PCs are mass-marketed today as appliances is part of Intel's problem. Again, the approach has been too dumbed down, treating the population only as consumers instead of as creators. If PCs were sold with an emphasis on programming, there'd be a larger percentage of population ready/willing/able to tackle the next big thing.