[jon.kiparsky]

cfoley, on 05 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

It's OK. There wouldn't be any more jobs than there are just now.

How do you figure? The number of programmers employed grows every year, by any measure you choose. Why would it stop growing?

[BobRodes]

jon.kiparsky, on 04 December 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Just checked with Pierce in our London office. He says both he and his other use the two-t version. News to me. I guess I can no longer assume that people who say "orientated" are illiterate. They might be limeys.

Let's conversate about orientate for a minute. By way of explanating, the word is derivated from combinating the words orient and orientation. ("Nouning" is the term for this. I know, because I just made it up.)

I have trouble reconciilating myself to the idea that the Brits modificate the correct word in this manner. In fact, I'm temptated to say that it's just plain wrong. But perhaps I just don't realizate that the Brits have degradated their level of education to that of the Americans since I was a schoolboy there in the early 70's. In other words, I imaginate that I might be poorly informated on the subject. So, before I disputate the point made, I shall embarcate on a ship to transportate myself across the pond, examinate the situation on the ground, and verificate this for myself one way or the other. No doubt, such an excursion will revelate the truth, but if it's true, I shall lamentate the development.

While I'm there, I'll also occupate myself by observating my beloved Oxford United play, and will exultate if they do well. Combinating business with pleasure, so to speak. (If the queen dies while I'm there, then I shall stick around and watch the Brits coronate the new monarch, too, of course.)

Anyway, I must affirmate that I don't admirate (let alone adorate) anyone who allegates, representates, or affirmates that "orientate" is in any wise an equivalent to "orient". That position is unjustificatable: pointlessly modificating a perfectly good word this way, as it were materializating a new word out of thin air, is just uncivilizated.

As Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes fame) said: "I like verbing. Verbing weirds language." Well, so do I, but I detestate nouning. Nouning degradates language. Degradates it.

Don't provocate me. i'm getting angry.

This post has been edited by BobRodes: 05 December 2012 - 10:50 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

BobRodes, on 06 December 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Don't provocate me. i'm getting angry angrificated

[BobRodes]

jon.kiparsky, on 05 December 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

BobRodes, on 06 December 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Don't provocate me. i'm getting angry angrificated

That's kind of over the top...

[trevster344]

I don't believe it will take over at all. The reason is that people find ways to make things better. Hell I can name 5 instances where someone has taken a simple invention and modified it, or reinvented it to be better, faster, lazier, etc.. That being said while those who invent, for example this software, try to do everything to their goals they cannot possible be the best at everything. It's simply not possible for them at all and they can only offer so many incentives. One application can't beat all, or be all for that matter. There will always be multiple ways to accomplish these things. A good example would be a 3D Game engine. A game engine is made up of thousands of different components to bring 3D art, and such to life. Just cause they made a 3D Game engine does not mean they figured out the fastest and best way of rendering shadows, vertices, or all of that. They can have some but not all. Simply put it's just another product for someone to possibly find a niche in. If it did have any sign of taking over it could be nothing more than a fad. We're not robots damnit. We're human beings with squishy brains.

[BenignDesign]

Bob, I officially love you and all your curmudgeonation.

[DaneAU]

If we can learn anything, there is a starving thirst for technology and with each innovation another layer of complexity is included. There will never be any end to programming in any of our life times, it is after all professional now pivotal to the entire world and how business, society function.

Oh and on another note, people said the ipad and all this jazz would destroy the book industry, well some might argue it has, i would say it cleared that industry out and brought it to account. There is always scare mongering around newer technologies as people try to work out what they are actually for. No doubt UML and drag-drop shit will mean there will be people doing all this fad work and pollute the world with shit software. I draw parallels between this and the crap china is pumping into the Australian market space, eventually people see and become tired of the crap and as such the process levels itself out.

[Lemur]

We started with Binary, and claimed that Assembly would be the end of programming. No, computers just got more powerful and demanded higher levels of abstraction.

We went from Assembly to C, C to C++, C++ to... well you get the point.

The more you abstract, the more room you give things to grow, the more you'll realize that the machines underneath will grow to fit the limits of your new paradigm. The ONLY exception I've seen to this is AI and Macro/Metaprogramming which becomes theoretically limitless. (Then again, good luck and god speed understanding enough of it to get to that level.)

Programming itself will never die. Perhaps it will evolve, completely change, but never die.

[doveraudio]

Hi folks,
great topic!
Not sure where the topic has gone, but this is a nice reminder of what I'm doing here. I am taking a course in computer science now, in order to streamline my ideals about programming, and organize a learning path through the various modern languages. My favored environment to code in is Synthedit, a proprietary modular synth, that uses boxes to wire up, to help simulate an infinite modular synth. The great thing is that you can code your own modules for it. It is not unlike LabView, and many other languages. Sure, it seems like a super high level language, but then again, it is also capable of utilizing logic modules, and has a considerable amount of binary modules. Pure Data is an open source project, much more in depth. Point is, somebody needs to code the modules, the functionality. Then it's up to desktop developers to make the generic into the unique. Myself, I want to mix paint. Let others make the art.

[gonzaw]

GeneXus does something like this as well. You learn a even higher level and abstract "language" (or rather a specification) and create systems without touching source code (hell you can even push a button if you want it in C++ or in java and it does so automatically)

It's been around for like 20 years so no, I don't think that'll be the end of programming...if it was programming would have ended quite a long time ago.

[shrik450]

DaneAU, on 08 December 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

I draw parallels between this and the crap china is pumping into the Australian market space, eventually people see and become tired of the crap and as such the process levels itself out.

Nice comparison :)China is destroying India's economy this way.