 |
BorlandTalk.com
Borland discussion newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Jake
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:03 am Post subject: The Tao of Babel |
 |
|
http://blogs.slcdug.org/jjacobson/archive/2004/08/18.aspx
There’s been a lot of buzz in the newsgroups over the past months about
languages. Should I switch to Java? What new features will the Delphi language
offer in Delphi 9?
Boring.
The world of computer programming languages is in need of real innovation, not
myriad permutations of syntax. I say, the next big thing in languages needs to
come by way of completing the UML (as Scott Ambler has so ably stated, “The UML
is incomplete”) and making it applicable to real world problems faced by real
world businesses. Users need tools that let them create solutions by laying out
UML-style diagrams and charts that map to RAD layout tools, and that directly
create IL or machine code from those UML and RAD designs, bypassing
intermediaries like C++, C# and all other guru-enrichment schemes of similar
ilk. The coder is an expensive luxury that the process does not really need.
“Jake, you’ve flipped your lid. There will always be a need for software
coders, because there will always be a need for the human element in software
development.”
Hello? What is the end user, a Martian? The end user is the only human in the
process that is really necessary, everybody else is simply a means to his ends,
a tool. Tools do not need to be humans, and the history of technology shows
that humans ultimately are poor tools that can and should be replaced by
specialized technology. The history of Western wealth and prosperity has been
this process of increasing capitalization over time, a process that makes the
process more and more efficient in meeting the needs of the final consumer. The
fact that this process works very well is attested to by the fact that modern
standards of living are so much better than the standards of living of even the
most fortunate members of prior ages. The poorest Americans have access to
things that even kings from a hundred years ago could not even dream of having,
like television and radio. Extended to the process in which software
development attempts to serve end users, this means that end users get more
control over the process, the process works better, and the process requires
fewer human intermediaries--like coders.
The future is not one populated by well-heeled software programmers. It is one
populated by well-heeled business analysts using their domain knowledge to
directly create solutions within the business process. The days of the
generalist software consultant who flits from client to client cranking code,
are numbered. The days of the C#/C++/Java/etc. language bigot who does nothing
all day but crank code in his favorite programming language, are numbered. The
days of the religious fanatic praying to his favorite technology, are numbered.
We now know from animal behaviorists that several types of animals use tools.
But it seems that only humanity falls in love with tools.
--
***Free Your Mind***
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeffrey Miller
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:27 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
"Captain Jake" <johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net> wrote
Where is Rosimildo these days?
http://tinyurl.com/3vadv
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zedd
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:02 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
| Quote: | The poorest Americans have access to things that even kings
from a hundred years ago could not even dream of having,
like television and radio.
|
These are poor substitutes to harems... <g>
| Quote: | It is one populated by well-heeled business analysts using
their domain knowledge to directly create solutions within
the business process.
|
And your suggestion for them is UML or UML-like design?
Somehow, that doesn't match.
There is something missing in your theory: however good the class
level design, it's still just a pure abstraction that does nothing,
and can fundamentally be completely bypassed (ie. UML is just an
unecessary facilitator, things can happen without it).
At some point, data needs be manipulated, formulas need be described,
purpose needs be detailed, and that, that isn't UML or abstract
design, it's code.
Z
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K. Sallee
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:24 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
| Quote: | world businesses. Users need tools that let them create solutions by
laying out
UML-style diagrams and charts that map to RAD layout tools, and that
directly
create IL or machine code from those UML and RAD designs, bypassing
intermediaries like C++, C# and all other guru-enrichment schemes of
similar
ilk. The coder is an expensive luxury that the process does not really
need.
|
I do think that UML lowers the bar again much like visual components
lowered the bar from having to create a window only by coding direct with
API calls. So in some respects, I think you are right, for some
applications, the 4 years of CS educated programmer may not be necessary
to create some software applications with improvements in UML.
However, to think that a coder will not be needed at some point to fill in
the holes with some software applications, I think is an interesting
concept, but highly unlikely. Especially for any software field where the
business logic of generic software is well worked out, and hence not
transmutable (such as finacial algorithms to do XYZ for a bank). In
cutting edge and scientific programming, like I do, I doubt UML can create
new, uncanned, code in all cases in the manner that I need. I also doubt
that any generic UML tool (which the "market" will support since niche
players often get little attention or support these days (no big money in
it)) will have the canned systems I will need. Delphi and years of
lacking immaginary number support comes to mind, for example.
Cheers,
Kevin
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SiegfriedN
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:02 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
high level abstraction versus low level implementation.
I do not think UML is ready for the low level implmentetion. ever?
You will have to have a symbol for each programming keyword equivalent.
Replacing words with symbols and colours...could have interesting
possibilities. You can immediately see what a routine is doing according
to the colours and shapes. Perhaps programming will be done like
building with a virtual lego set.
siegs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SiegfriedN
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:16 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
SiegfriedN wrote:
| Quote: | Perhaps programming will be done like building with a virtual lego set.
sorry I meant 'virtual reality lego set' |
It would be easy to see where the system is out of shape. Will give a
new meaning to the 'art of programming'. 3D vr software development for
a 3D environment.
...getting carried away..
siegs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:21 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
Captain Jake wrote:
| Quote: | Jake, youve flipped your lid
|
Who are we to argue? <g>
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
See Delphi 9 (codename: Diamondback) at BorCon (US) 2004:
http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32499,00.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:24 am Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
| Quote: | I say, the next big thing in languages needs to
come by way of completing the UML
|
Research into this sort of thing has been going on at least since I was
at uni. The general consensus from all that research seems to be that
visual representations are OK at a sufficiently high level, but are crap
at lower levels. There are plenty of things even at the class/interface
level that are far clearer in code than in a UML diagram, no matter how
you were to add to it. IMO, UML does not lend itself particularly well
to modern iterative techniques like refactoring (which simply cannot be
done completely at a class level). My experience is that heavy use of
UML based tools does not lead to cleaner or better designs either,
rather the reverse quite often. IMO this is because design cannot be
driven entirely top-down (in anything but the most trivial of projects),
which is the emphasis of UML. The code itself drives quite a lot of
design decisions (aka refactoring)
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
_______________________________________________
Jim Cooper [email]jim (AT) falafelsoft (DOT) com[/email]
Falafel Software http://www.falafelsoft.co.uk
_______________________________________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingvar Nilsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
Jim Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | My experience is that heavy use of UML based tools does not lead to
cleaner or better designs either, rather the reverse quite often. IMO
this is because design cannot be driven entirely top-down (in
anything but the most trivial of projects),
|
Right.
| Quote: | which is the emphasis of UML.
|
Who gave you that impression?
UML is all about communication, to tell others now how things work, to
tell yourself tomorrow how things work (because you have forgotten it).
UML is also nice during design, but a few boxes and arrows that you draw
using paper an pen will also do.
| Quote: | The code itself drives quite a lot of design decisions (aka
refactoring)
|
Yes, that's why you should not become a UML-slave.
I use UML mainly for documentation, but also to some extent during
design. Using it during design forces me to make a better design than
without, and it also has helped me locate illogical or erroneous program
flow even before I have written a single line of code.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Carter
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:04 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
| Quote: | Where is Rosimildo these days?
|
Ssh! Don't wake him up!
Rick Carter
[email]carterrk (AT) despammed (DOT) com[/email]
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kristofer Skaug
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
zedd wrote:
| Quote: | At some point, data needs be manipulated, formulas need be described,
purpose needs be detailed, and that, that isn't UML or abstract
design, it's code.
|
.... and business analysts who have never done real coding are not
prepared to think to the required algorithmic accuracy.
Nor are users/customers typically able to specify the algorithm with
adequate precision.
--
Kristofer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kristofer Skaug
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
Captain Jake wrote:
| Quote: | The coder is an expensive luxury that the process does not really need.
|
Can I just say that I completely disagree with almost everything you said
in that post?
thank you.
--
Kristofer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kristofer Skaug
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
Kristofer Skaug wrote:
sorry, forgot to finish off the last sentence.
What I mean is we need a clearer job titles standard in IT so that you
can tell by the title who does the real brainy work (and deserves a good
pay). :-)
--
Kristofer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Wester [Group W]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
In article <4124c0b8 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com>, ya.ierfgnf (AT) thnxf (DOT) x says...
| Quote: | Kristofer Skaug wrote:
snip
|
Well said, sir.
BTW, haven't seen you on the other boards for a while. How goes?
--
John
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: The Tao of Babel |
|
|
Captain Jake wrote:
| Quote: |
The future is not one populated by well-heeled software programmers.
It is one populated by well-heeled business analysts using their
domain knowledge to directly create solutions within the business
process. The days of the generalist software consultant who flits
from client to client cranking code, are numbered. The days of the
C#/C++/Java/etc. language bigot who does nothing all day but crank
code in his favorite programming language, are numbered.
|
Jake, your words here could be directly replaced with words spoken by many
as far back as 1960 when COBOL first appeared. This whole idea has been a
holy grail of our industry for that long.
In general we have moved and will continue to move - sort of - in that
direction, but not literally. I.e. what constantly changes is that the tools
do indeed get more sophisticated, and that means the users of those tools
become more productive with the same amount of effort, and it also opens the
industry to more users (programmers) that may not have been able to pursue
such a career previously.
However, making software development more productive and within the ability
of more to do it is still a far cry from "Joe Businessonwner" being able to
*effectively* write his own applications. This is for several reasons:
1) No matter how sophisticated the tools, one must still have certain
apptitudes and skills to be good at designing and producing software (not
limited to software, true in all industries)
2) Most Joe Businessowners have better things to do with their time than to
learn how to use such tools and will continue to be willing to pay others to
do it for them.
3) More sophisticated tools always give rise to more sophisticated *uses*
for those tools. So even while Joe Businessowner may now be able to put
together custom variations of standard software needs on his own, he will
still also have a need for much more sophisticated software that still
requires specialists to design and develop.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: http://www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
Light is faster than sound, which is why some folks appear bright
before they speak.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
