Programming

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that "programming sucks" but there are some neat thoughts and tools in there.

This bit in particular:

We don't even have to give up code! The GUI version of a program could merely be one of several human-editable representations. Just as some people love text-based interfaces to their operating systems, some people will continue to enjoy code-based interfaces to software editing. It just doesn't have to be the default—or the only—option anymore.

I've often thought about the idea that to an extent a programming syntax does not have to be married to a language. We could potentially have editors and syntaxes designed so that each developer can interact with the code in the syntax they're most comfortable with, independent of the language. I don't know how realisable this is, it may be underestimating how tightly coupled syntax and language is.

I'm not a big fan of graphical programming in general, but there are times when I would like it just for a single function or class, for signal processing or control systems or state machines. I usually think of this in terms of editor plugins or external code gen tools rather than whole environments. Although every code gen tool I've used to date sucks.

Imagine this: instead of reading other people's code and then trying to parse their intentions form [sic] it, you read the documentation to understand their intentions and then you read the code. You no longer have to strain yourself trying to understand what someone wrote for another audience (the machine). They've already explained it for you.

The best implementation of this I'm aware of is the Entangled bi-directional tangler. A tangler extracts code from your documentation and distributes it across the appropriate source code files. It's [sic] bidirectionality means you can use it to write code embedded in documentation, but then also edit that code normally which it then propagates back into the code blocks in the documentation. This allows programmers to use existing tooling for testing, refactoring, and code formatting without special support for literate programming.

The best built-in implementation for this that I've seen is Rust's doctests. You write a block of code in your documentation. Then you run cargo test. The code gets compiled and executed as part of your tests, and panics get reported as failures. You can also mark code blocks as should_panic, compile_fail, ignore, etc if needed.

I'd love to see tools like this in other languages. Write the docs next to the code, but compile the docs as well and make sure they actually work. This is sort of what Entangled seems to do, but ideally more entangled with the build process.

But GUIs too; they are frameworks, because we are stuck with hardware patterns from the 80s, made for servers. They are workarounds. Same for the whole Unix stack running a desktop-emulator (X, Wayland).