Steve Jobs’ biographer, Walter Isaacson, writes in the NY Times:
The ability to merge creativity with technology depends on one’s ability to be emotionally attuned to others. Mr. Jobs could be petulant and unkind in dealing with other people, which caused some to think he lacked basic emotional awareness. In fact, it was the opposite. He could size people up, understand their inner thoughts, cajole them, intimidate them, target their deepest vulnerabilities, and delight them at will. He knew, intuitively, how to create products that pleased, interfaces that were friendly, and marketing messages that were enticing.
He seems at first to be praising Jobs’ empathy, but ends up describing a psychopath. Only by not feeling the emotions of others can one learn to ruthlessly manipulate them. Ironically, the lack of empathy is actually a great enabler of creativity. Thinking differently threatens and upsets people. To be creative you need to not give a damn what anyone else thinks or feels.
I am program chair of Onward! 2012. What do you want to see?
Here is one thing I am thinking about. I understand that in the real sciences, conferences often accept papers based solely on an abstract. That wouldn’t work for Onward, or even most of CS. Perhaps we should instead use the opposite of an abstract: a “concrete”. That is, an example. A common problem with big-idea papers is the lack of examples, making them quite difficult to understand. Perhaps we ought to require authors to submit an example up front in lieu of an abstract. That procedure might be beneficial both for the authors and the reviewers.
Programming is not just engineering — it is design. All my hopes and beliefs about programming boil down to that one assertion, which has become my main cause. The misunderstanding of programming as engineering has many pernicious effects, infecting our tools, technologies, and practices. Computer Science embodies this fallacy in its very name. Therefore I have banded together with some other programming language researchers and developers to form the IFIP Working Group 2.16 on Programming Language Design.
Continue reading “A win for design”
We have ignition: an actual implementation of an actual language. Toy-like in the extreme, but it can run the sorts of simple examples I have been discussing the last few years. I think I can take it all the way to a prototype application framework. This is huge progress.
Continue reading “It’s a good day to code”
It’s great to be coding again, after spending so long lost in thought and theory. This has been my longest break from programming since I started at 13. I now have a working virtual machine that supports the essential semantics of the language. The next step is a compiler. The good thing about having a long break from programming is that it made the experience of starting up again quite vivid. What was most vivid was the many ways I make programming needlessly harder for myself. Continue reading “Delusions of Programming”
My experiment with Scala is not working out. It’s just not ready for prime time, and is overkill for my needs. Reluctantly, I am falling back to Java. Continue reading “Switching to Plan J”
Programming is deeply disappointing. We continually fail to live up to our own expectations, more so than any other form of engineering or craft. And it’s not getting much better. The lack of any substantial progress is the most disappointing thing of all. Worst of all: it is our own fault.
Continue reading “For the good of software, software must die!”
The history of programming languages is depressing. Generally worse is better. Socio-economic factors dominate. But there seems to be one giant exception: Ruby & Rails. I haven’t studied them deeply, but they look like really good work that has succeeded on its merits. Ruby is a tastefully designed language with a coherent philosophy of making programming easy and fun. Rails righteously smites the bloated complexity of the Big Java web frameworks. Gotta love it. So how did it win? This undermines my entire cynical world view. Can anyone explain how it went down?
Update: note the obstacles. Ruby had dubious performance. It was developed in Japan, doc translation from Japanese was incomplete and laggy, the dev lists were largely in Japanese. Scripting languages were not considered suitable for large-scale applications. Ruby was not used for a lot of server-side programming. Rails took away many checklist features that people thought they needed. People had already built cool web frameworks in LISP and Smalltalk without anyone much caring. What fortuitous combination of factors allowed Ruby&Rails to succeed? How important was the DHH cult of personality? I’m guessing a lot.
As an experiment, I am announcing new blog posts on my twitter feed @jonathoda. I am also going to try tweeting pearls of programming wisdom that I find. Feedback welcome.
The discussion on my previous post (Why numbering should start at one) suggests a new approach. Maybe these blogging tubes are good for something after all.
Continue reading “Why we shouldn’t number”
Should collection/sequence/array indices start with zero or one? Most current languages choose zero. For flux, I am choosing one. This choice is orthogonal, meaning that I can easily change it if it turns out to be wrong. The reason to discuss such a trivial issue is that it is an example of how choices that made sense in the early days of programming need to be reexamined. It also frames some principles of language design: Abstract Datatypes, and Conservatism.
Continue reading “Why numbering should start at one”
Hey, long time. Having a snow day here, which is a good day to catch up. My son got sick this summer, which knocked me out of commission for a while, but I am back to work now. As promised last June, I have defined the formal semantics of a core language that captures the key ideas of side-effects in a tree-structured heap without sequential programming. I have formulated confluence and soundness theorems that seem plausible (though I haven’t tried to prove them). So I don’t think it will collapse under me like Coherence did. One of the next steps is to build a reasonably usable textual syntax that can be compiled into the core language. By reasonably usable, I mean usable for expressing small examples up to a hundred lines of code, which is the minimum I need to communicate the idea to others. The working title of the language is flux.
Continue reading “Still Alive”
Here. I actually haven’t watched it yet because it is just too freaky to see myself on video. I’ll wait till Edward Norton plays me in the movie version.
I meant to write this earlier, but I have been occupied with a family medical emergency. The EL camp was a great experience, and I hope they do it again. I met more interesting people, and heard more interesting ideas, than at any other conference I have attended. Naturally there were ups and downs. There were some me-too languages with no purpose other than to entertain and glorify the author. But there were also quite a few serious efforts to try out new ideas and advance the state of the art. I would like to thank the organizers, Alex Payne and Brady Forrest, for perceiving the need and making this event happen. Continue reading “Emerging Languages Camp Wrapup”
Slides are at [PPT][PDF]. I will probably only have time to present a subset of these slides.
The biggest problem with programming is that we don’t agree on what the problem is. The comments on the previous posts reveal fundamentally incompatible views. I am equally shocked by the opinions held by some distinguished academics and leading practitioners. Our views of programming are so at odds that it’s almost as if we were from different planets. Wait – that’s it! It all makes sense now… Continue reading “Vulcans vs. Apes”
Reflecting upon my previous post, I am wondering why LISP triumphalists like Paul Graham annoy me so much? Perhaps it is because I used to be one myself, in spirit if not in syntax. And also because I now see them as a major symptom of what ails programming. Continue reading “Mea Culpa”
I just read yet another recycling of the old myth of how some esoteric programming language (often Lisp or Haskell) is the secret weapon that allowed a team to outperform expectations by an order of magnitude. Paul Graham has strongly encouraged this myth (see Beating the Averages), but it has been circulating for ages. It is totally false. Worse, it reinforces the intellectual elitism that is the bane of our field. Continue reading “The Myth of the Super Programming Language”
Much has been written lately about Apple restricting iPhone and iPad apps to only use Apple programming languages and libraries. This is indeed an alarming development for the future of programming.
Opinion is split as to whether this decision shows Steve Jobs to be a visionary hero seeking only to improve the quality of the user experience, or that he is a megalomaniac Fascist. But I think people are missing what this is really about. It’s about the money. The Ad money.
App Ads are potentially a Google-scale cash flow, and Jobs wants it. He wants to sell ads and inject them into apps on the iPhone/iPad/iDesk, just like Google injects ads into web pages. He can’t do that unless all the apps are using his libraries. If he lets Flash apps in, then Adobe would be able to sell the ads instead. That is why section 3.3.9 of the new developer agreement says “the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited”. Like, for example, Ad networks.
Help me, Google; you’re my only hope.