@wolf480pl it is the current way of moving up a layer that I object to. We should be thinking of new ways of programming and instead are stuck making new frameworks. We imagine adding more cruft will somehow make it better. Eg., Arduino and Processing imagined that you could take a language wildly unsuited to beginners and make it palatable with a library

@jamesthomson @darrenmoffat Dapper new profile pic, James!

@darrenmoffat I mean… I was *there with you*!

@darrenmoffat Holy shit! Darren?

@mainec I teach block-based languages to grownups all the time and I just wish they weren’t viewed as “toys”

@eschaton oh yeah, I’m sure they had their reasons. Interesting “to me” I suppose

@mirth It's truly amazing what browsers are able to do now, but unfortunately that doesn't fix that JavaScript and the entire JavaScript ecosystem is a godawful mess

@requiem @skotchygut believe it or not, I actually learned C on the BBC Micro in the 80s with the Beebug C compiler, which was a strange contraption that compiled to a 16-bit virtual machine code and then interpreted that on the 8-bit 6502

@eschaton It looks cute, though curious to build such a faithful homage but ditch the most interesting thing about HyperCard – the HyperTalk language

@saferblue.bsky.social Rust, Swift, C#, Java, C++ are all functionally equivalent languages to me. When I say “high level” I mean something like Prolog or HyperTalk, maybe Haskell

@whitequark yes! Rust totally makes accessible a lot of previously esoteric type theory to people who are programming at a low enough level that they probably should be using it. But even as someone who lives for this sort of shit, it’s too low level for 95% of what I want to be doing day to day

@whitequark Heh! I honestly expected to get more pushback on the Rust quip . I don't mean to ding on it in particular, I actually like Rust a lot. Introducing the borrow checker as a type-theoretic way of doing formal proof of memory safety is genuinely great, but algebraic types and protocols go way, way back.

@jarkman thank you!

To me, all these people crowing about having written 10k lines of code in a day are idiots. If you need to write that much code in a day, you are manifestly working at the wrong level of abstraction to solve your problem.

I've seen lots of posts in the last couple of days about how quickly one can write lots of code with AI. I feel perplexed by this as I hate large programs. The largest thing I have written in the last decade is Flitter. It's only 30k lines and I believe very strongly that it is. Still. Too. Big. Even there, I wrote it purposely to allow the stuff I write *in* it to be very smol: mostly no more than 100 lines. That is the maximum I want to write in a day.

@gklyne @jarkman I think CSG is a fantastic fit with functional/declarative languages. I added the support for Manifold to Flitter as a speculative exercise and only then discovered that it was an incredibly powerful tool for things I was trying to achieve

@codingcatgirl Thanks for this! As someone who has also called themself an artist for over a decade, I have a lot of thoughts on this too, but perhaps I need to mull for a bit and then start a new thread. I’ll drop you a link when I start posting

@gklyne @jarkman yes, there’s definite parallels with OpenSCAD that I was unaware of when I originally created it. I am (constantly) on the verge of developing a new take on Flitter and I mean to explore that further

@gklyne @jarkman I wasn’t planning to. As a team lead I’m not supposed to put myself up for a talk as well, though I think that’s more of a guideline than a rule…

On the gripping hand, if you're a trained programmer using vibe-coding because of a perceived increase in your productivity, or pressure from management to increase your productivity, I would refer you to my first post in this thread…