I wish engineers and computer scientists would pay attention to that gut reaction more often.
Programming really at some level is as much about translating human ideas into physical computations as anything. In this regard, it is a fundamentally psychological process, as much about the programmer as the computer. There's a sort of psychological-cognitive -> math -> physics process, and I often feel as if the emphasis is on the second two steps, and not so much on the first two.
There's good reasons for this, but it's resulted in a sort of blind spot that often comes out as people just preferring languages like python or javascript or whatever, and not wanting to acknowledge that those fuzzy, poorly understood preference processes are driving development as much as the choice of algorithm or hardware constraints.
I think it's poor ergonomics, really, and effects things as much as memory management models, etc.
We're at a stage, though, where languages like Nim, etc. offer some promise of ergonomics and performance, and I hope people will pay attention to it carefully, so we don't end up in the same situation as the one Atom exemplifies. I like Atom, and don't have any particular attachment to Nim, but do think there's something we shouldn't be ignoring anymore. Often when a language is difficult to intuit, the reaction is to shame the programmer, to characterize them as not smart enough to understand the language. Sometimes there's some truth to that, but sometimes I think it reflects deficits in the language, whose sole purpose, really, is to translate human thoughts into computational events.
"There's good reasons for this, but it's resulted in a sort of blind spot that often comes out as people just preferring languages like python or javascript or whatever, and not wanting to acknowledge that those fuzzy, poorly understood preference processes are driving development as much as the choice of algorithm or hardware constraints."
One language that openly acknowledges it is designed first and foremost with psychological factors and ergonomics in mind is Ruby:
"For me the purpose of life is partly to have joy. Programmers often feel joy when they can concentrate on the creative side of programming, So Ruby is designed to make programmers happy."
Programming really at some level is as much about translating human ideas into physical computations as anything. In this regard, it is a fundamentally psychological process, as much about the programmer as the computer. There's a sort of psychological-cognitive -> math -> physics process, and I often feel as if the emphasis is on the second two steps, and not so much on the first two.
There's good reasons for this, but it's resulted in a sort of blind spot that often comes out as people just preferring languages like python or javascript or whatever, and not wanting to acknowledge that those fuzzy, poorly understood preference processes are driving development as much as the choice of algorithm or hardware constraints.
I think it's poor ergonomics, really, and effects things as much as memory management models, etc.
We're at a stage, though, where languages like Nim, etc. offer some promise of ergonomics and performance, and I hope people will pay attention to it carefully, so we don't end up in the same situation as the one Atom exemplifies. I like Atom, and don't have any particular attachment to Nim, but do think there's something we shouldn't be ignoring anymore. Often when a language is difficult to intuit, the reaction is to shame the programmer, to characterize them as not smart enough to understand the language. Sometimes there's some truth to that, but sometimes I think it reflects deficits in the language, whose sole purpose, really, is to translate human thoughts into computational events.