Here is the paper I am submitting to OOPSLA Onward! [PDF] [WORD]
Comments are welcome, especially by the deadline Friday March 18.
[Update: accepted!]
Structure-Oriented Programming
Mike Lambert asks for a clarification to my Future of Programming post, where I say: “I am exploring the “dual†of OO, in which the encapsulation of behavior is replaced by the publication of reactive structureâ€. Continue reading “Structure-Oriented Programming”
Crossing the IDE Divide
Oliver Steele observes a significant division among programmers: the Language Mavens vs. the Tool Mavens. I want to reflect upon this distinction, and use it to make a point about the nature of programming. You see, for a long time I was a Language Maven, but now I am a Tool Maven. Continue reading “Crossing the IDE Divide”
Letter to the editor of The Economist
Sir – your Nov 25 special report “Managing Complexity†asked whether the manifest failures of software can be fixed by giving developers better tools. Some of the tools you discuss, so-called Lifecycle Management, will actually make things worse. Lifecycle Management is an ill-concealed attempt to impose a totalitarian regime upon software development. As such, it will inevitably fail, but only after having first caused much damage. Experience has shown time and again that successful software development results from the freedom to innovate, not the discipline of control. Continue reading “Letter to the editor of The Economist”
The future of programming
I discovered the creative exhilaration of programming at a formative age. Yet all along I have also felt stifled by primitive, ill-suited languages and tools. We are still in the Stone Age of programming. My quest is to better understand the creative act of programming, and to help liberate it. Reflection upon my own practice of programming has led me to three general observations: Continue reading “The future of programming”