• deadalnix (2/2) Mar 19 2015 I let this here. Very interesting and relevant to anyone here.
• Walter Bright (2/4) Mar 20 2015 It's nearly an hour long. Got a TL;DW ?
• Paulo Pinto (21/26) Mar 20 2015 Language features should be tested with real users using
• Walter Bright (1/1) Mar 20 2015 Thanks!
• w0rp (3/6) Mar 20 2015 That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language,
• Paulo Pinto (10/16) Mar 20 2015 I said scientific studies, not asking joe/jane developer.
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (8/10) Mar 20 2015 I think language syntax design these days should include the IDE.
• Paulo Pinto (9/19) Mar 20 2015 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully
• ketmar (3/6) Mar 20 2015 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone=2...
• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (37/47) Mar 20 2015 Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based controls
• CraigDillabaugh (16/47) Mar 20 2015 While I may not share you optimism for the future, I do agree the
• Paulo Pinto (16/91) Mar 20 2015 When I use GUIs, my knowledge of keyboard shortcuts coupled with
• ketmar (7/10) Mar 20 2015 this is another overhyped trendy blah-blah, like "cloud computing". such...
• Joakim (18/39) Mar 20 2015 What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech
• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (14/32) Mar 20 2015 I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and
• FG (9/21) Mar 21 2015 "Find me the best deal on a S6" is only a little more complex than "make...
• Piotrek (5/20) Mar 21 2015 Just for fun. A visualization of the problem from 2007 (I doubt
• Paulo Pinto (6/55) Mar 21 2015 I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the
• deadalnix (2/7) Mar 21 2015 People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive.
• Joakim (3/11) Mar 21 2015 Unless you've been alive for a few centuries, they still could be
• Paulo Pinto (6/14) Mar 23 2015 You missed my remark about the age of computing versus other arts
• deadalnix (6/21) Mar 23 2015 Maybe, and we will certainly see more of this in the future.
• Joakim (48/141) Mar 21 2015 Just tried it on google's voice search, it thought I said "Find
• FG (5/15) Mar 21 2015 Yeah, I've exaggerated the problem. The deciding factor will be the requ...
• Joakim (55/194) Mar 29 2015 We will probably keep some variation on the current textual
• Abdulhaq (6/10) Mar 29 2015 I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach
• Joakim (15/27) Mar 30 2015 Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the
• Abdulhaq (13/46) Mar 30 2015 It was such an exciting time back then, but most of us who had a
• ketmar (2/32) Mar 30 2015 that would be a big day!=
• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (63/105) Mar 21 2015 Of course. But we're talking here about interfaces for *programmers*,
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (21/34) Mar 21 2015 Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will
• Laeeth Isharc (15/24) Mar 21 2015 As you implicitly recognize later, it's not either/or, in the
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (16/23) Mar 22 2015 Actually, the visual system is a lot more powerful than our very
• ketmar (10/20) Mar 20 2015 Oberon TUI was really nice, as it combines point-and-click with CLI=20
• John Colvin (6/81) Mar 21 2015 In general I'm in agreement with you, but I think there *is* a
• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (63/104) Mar 21 2015 Certainly, some tasks are more suited for 2D, or even 3D, manipulation
• weaselcat (5/14) Mar 20 2015 I wish there was a blend of modern IDEs with the
• Rikki Cattermole (2/15) Mar 20 2015 You guys are giving me ideas...
• deadalnix (6/12) Mar 20 2015 The guy explain that for beginner it is worse, but after 3+ years
• Laeeth Isharc (12/15) Mar 20 2015 There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a
• Walter Bright (3/5) Mar 20 2015 True. Scientific studies of human behavior are notoriously difficult to ...
• John Colvin (2/5) Mar 21 2015 I sense a recursive problem here...
• Atila Neves (4/12) Mar 22 2015 Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable.
• deadalnix (4/17) Mar 22 2015 But then, how can I keep my delusions and pretend they are fact
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (5/8) Mar 22 2015 You will keep your delusions and pretend they are fact until you
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (2/4) Mar 22 2015 WTF?
• FG (2/5) Mar 22 2015 Heh, everything is measurable, but sometimes the chosen metrics and anal...
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (32/43) Mar 22 2015 Almost right. Even a well conducted quantitative study might be
• Kagamin (2/9) Mar 23 2015 Anything wrong with VB.NET?

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

I let this here. Very interesting and relevant to anyone here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZ-QSLQIB8

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 3/19/2015 10:46 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 I let this here. Very interesting and relevant to anyone here.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZ-QSLQIB8

It's nearly an hour long. Got a TL;DW ?

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:14:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 3/19/2015 10:46 PM, deadalnix wrote:
 I let this here. Very interesting and relevant to anyone here.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZ-QSLQIB8

 It's nearly an hour long. Got a TL;DW ?

Language features should be tested with real users using 
scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly added 
to a language.

This means using tests groups with different types of 
backgrounds, applying the features in several situations, 
devising specific set of measurable targets and applying the 
whole statistic analysis to the results.

For example, instead of having an online forum which syntax would 
be desired for the new feature X, have the whole set of options 
implemented and see which of them achieves better results with 
the respective study groups.

An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow 
Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those that 
follow C like syntax.

There are quite a few other examples. Also the mention that as 
far as the researcher is aware, only Microsoft is pursuing such 
studies for language features. Don Syme is in the audience and 
gives an example how they did it for .NET generics.

--
Paulo

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

Thanks!

"w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow 
 Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those 
 that follow C like syntax.

That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language, 
which is optimised for bug creation.

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 11:48:20 UTC, w0rp wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow 
 Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those 
 that follow C like syntax.

 That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language, 
 which is optimised for bug creation.

I said scientific studies, not asking joe/jane developer.

Pick a random set of people without programming skills, using 
imaginary language X, with two types of syntax's to code a set of 
tasks in separate groups, one for each syntax.

Measure each group behavior using proven analysis methods.

At end of the study, the groups using the Algol based syntax will 
deliver less bugs.


--
Paulo

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 12:00:35 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 At end of the study, the groups using the Algol based syntax 
 will deliver less bugs.

I think language syntax design these days should include the IDE. 
E.g. Dart's syntax is nothing special and not good at preventing 
bugs in itself, but the Dart syntax works very well when used 
with the Dart editor (based on Eclipse).

These days it probably is a mistake to design a language syntax 
without considering what kind of IDE design the language is 
supposed to be used with.

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 12:07:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 12:00:35 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 At end of the study, the groups using the Algol based syntax 
 will deliver less bugs.

 I think language syntax design these days should include the 
 IDE. E.g. Dart's syntax is nothing special and not good at 
 preventing bugs in itself, but the Dart syntax works very well 
 when used with the Dart editor (based on Eclipse).

 These days it probably is a mistake to design a language syntax 
 without considering what kind of IDE design the language is 
 supposed to be used with.

Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully 
agree.

Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of 
yore.

Thankfully the situation has improved a lot in the last decade.

--
Paulo

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree.
=20
 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore.

being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone=20
emacs/vim.=

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +0000, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 
 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully
 agree.
 
 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of
 yore.

 
 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone
 emacs/vim.

Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based controls
that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so frustrated at
the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the thing
out the window.

But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's
about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the
CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful
advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a script.
Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means complex
operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives with
greater expressiveness.

Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you can't
abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of keyboard
shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the realm of
micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open submenu,
click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at
encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've seen
attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be useful.) You
can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is bound to
what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of mouse
interactions the same way you can take a bash script and parametrize it
to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed commands
did.

Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur.
It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with
grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take
decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades
away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a
non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or
something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end
with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the
expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive
point-and-grunt.


T

-- 
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares? --
Miquel van Smoorenburg

"CraigDillabaugh" <craig.dillabaugh gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +0000, ketmar via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 
 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I 
 fully
 agree.
 
 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the 
 days of
 yore.

 
 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, 
 let alone
 emacs/vim.

 Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based 
 controls
 that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so 
 frustrated at
 the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the 
 thing
 out the window.

 But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. 
 rodent... it's
 about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands 
 at the
 CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a 
 powerful
 advantage:

clip
 Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
 dinosaur.

While I may not share you optimism for the future, I do agree the 
CLI is almost always better:o)

One big advantage to CLI stuff is that when you come up against 
some tricky configuration, or rarely used command, you can write 
a little script (with comments) describing how to do it (and WHY 
you did it that way).  Very handy for those tasks that you end up 
doing once every X months, and always forget the details of in 
between.  How do you do that with a GUI? Make a video or open up 
OpenOffice/MS Word and start taking screen shots. Painful stuff.

Same goes for configuration files which beat GUI-based 
configuration hands down.

Having said all that having IDE-like, language aware, 
code-completion and background compilation, and a good debugger 
are a big plus for productivity in many cases.

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +0000, ketmar via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 
 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I 
 fully
 agree.
 
 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the 
 days of
 yore.

 
 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, 
 let alone
 emacs/vim.

 Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based 
 controls
 that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so 
 frustrated at
 the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the 
 thing
 out the window.

 But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. 
 rodent... it's
 about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands 
 at the
 CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a 
 powerful
 advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a 
 script.
 Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means 
 complex
 operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives 
 with
 greater expressiveness.

 Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you 
 can't
 abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of 
 keyboard
 shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the 
 realm of
 micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open 
 submenu,
 click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at
 encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've 
 seen
 attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be 
 useful.) You
 can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is 
 bound to
 what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of 
 mouse
 interactions the same way you can take a bash script and 
 parametrize it
 to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed 
 commands
 did.

 Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
 dinosaur.
 It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language 
 with
 grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It 
 may take
 decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI 
 trendiness fades
 away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no 
 future in a
 non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of 
 time, or
 something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent 
 dead-end
 with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the
 expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive
 point-and-grunt.


 T

When I use GUIs, my knowledge of keyboard shortcuts coupled with 
the mouse actions is no different than top gamer playing a 
FPS/RTS game.

Sure, GUIs might not beat CLIs in terms of scriptability, but 
GUIs coupled with REPLs sure do the job pretty well.

When I am on Mac OS X and Windows, reaching out for the CLI means 
using developer tools only available via the console or 
automating administration tasks.

On the other hand when at any other UNIX flavours besides Mac OS 
X, it seems the CLI is unavoidable.


As for CLIs regaining their central place in the world of 
computing, in a world going towards speech recognition and touch 
interfaces, I very much doubt CLI use will increase.

--
Paulo

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:31:06 +0000, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 As for CLIs regaining their central place in the world of computing, in
 a world going towards speech recognition and touch interfaces, I very
 much doubt CLI use will increase.

this is another overhyped trendy blah-blah, like "cloud computing". such=20
interfaces are for casual users. sure, when i want to simply listen music=20
or watch a movie, it's easier to tell that or point it with my finger.=20
but if i want to use my computer for something more complex, typing on=20
keyboard is simply faster and less error-prone than speaking. especially=20
if you cut off that stupid mouse. ;-)=

"Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 18:31:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
 dinosaur.
 It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual 
 language with
 grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. 
 It may take
 decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI 
 trendiness fades
 away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no 
 future in a
 non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of 
 time, or
 something else altogether will come along to replace the 
 rodent dead-end
 with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the
 expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive
 point-and-grunt.

 As for CLIs regaining their central place in the world of 
 computing, in a world going towards speech recognition and 
 touch interfaces, I very much doubt CLI use will increase.

What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech 
recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of 
both.  Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping 
websites for the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the 
intelligent agent on my computer "Find me the best deal on a S6" 
and it will go find it.

As for touch, seems like a dead-end to me, far less expressive 
than anything else and really only geared for rudimentary 
interaction.  It may always be there but you likely won't use it 
much.  I do think some sort of hand gesture-based interface will 
stick around for when voice isn't expressive enough, ie you'll 
still want to use your hands when painting:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/19/jaw-dropping-magic-leap-demo/

That video is not the way it will be done, as waving your arms 
around Minority Report-style is way too much effort, but 
something akin to the small finger movements I make on my 
touch-based trackpad, but in 3D, will likely be it.

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
 What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech
 recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both.
 Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for
 the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my
 computer "Find me the best deal on a S6" and it will go find it.

I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and
concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for everyday tasks
like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good Enough(tm),
but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more expressive
than the keyboard.


 As for touch, seems like a dead-end to me, far less expressive than
 anything else and really only geared for rudimentary interaction.  It
 may always be there but you likely won't use it much.

Yeah, it's just another variation of point-and-grunt. Except the grunt
part is replaced with tap. :-P


 I do think some sort of hand gesture-based interface will stick around
 for when voice isn't expressive enough, ie you'll still want to use
 your hands when painting:
 
 http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/19/jaw-dropping-magic-leap-demo/
 
 That video is not the way it will be done, as waving your arms around
 Minority Report-style is way too much effort, but something akin to
 the small finger movements I make on my touch-based trackpad, but in
 3D, will likely be it.

You might be on to something. Manipulation of 3D holograms via hand
motion detection perhaps might be what will eventually work best.


T

-- 
"Maybe" is a strange word.  When mom or dad says it it means "yes", but when my
big brothers say it it means "no"! -- PJ jr.

FG <home fgda.pl> writes:

On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 [...]
 What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech
 recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both.
 Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping websites for
 the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent agent on my
 computer "Find me the best deal on a S6" and it will go find it.

 I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely and
 concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for everyday tasks
 like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good Enough(tm),
 but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more expressive
 than the keyboard.

"Find me the best deal on a S6" is only a little more complex than "make me a
cup of coffee." Fine for doing predefined tasks but questionable as an
ubiquitous input method. It's hard enough for mathematicians to dictate a
theorem without using any symbolic notation. There is too much ambiguity and
room for interpretation in speech to make it a reliable and easy input method
for all tasks. Even in your example:

You say: "Find me the best deal on a S6."
I hear: "Fine me the best teal on A.S. six."
Computer: "Are you looking for steel?"

Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how do you include
meta-text control sequences in a message? By raising your voice or tilting your
head when you say the magic words? Cf.:

"There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six END
PARAGRAPH..."

Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. Therefore I just
cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact representation is
required, especially in programming:

"Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine
labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive
labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if
the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero
modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING."

"Piotrek" <no_data no_data.pl> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote:
 Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how 
 do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By 
 raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic 
 words? Cf.:

 "There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE 
 on page six END PARAGRAPH..."

 Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. 
 Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where 
 exact representation is required, especially in programming:

 "Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state 
 of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range 
 between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a 
 boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member 
 labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero 
 modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING."

Just for fun. A visualization of the problem from 2007 (I doubt 
there was breakthrough meanwhile)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzJ0CytAsec

Piotrek

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote:
 On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +0000, Joakim via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 [...]
 What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, 
 speech
 recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of 
 both.
 Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping 
 websites for
 the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent 
 agent on my
 computer "Find me the best deal on a S6" and it will go find 
 it.

 I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely 
 and
 concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for 
 everyday tasks
 like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good 
 Enough(tm),
 but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more 
 expressive
 than the keyboard.

 "Find me the best deal on a S6" is only a little more complex 
 than "make me a cup of coffee." Fine for doing predefined tasks 
 but questionable as an ubiquitous input method. It's hard 
 enough for mathematicians to dictate a theorem without using 
 any symbolic notation. There is too much ambiguity and room for 
 interpretation in speech to make it a reliable and easy input 
 method for all tasks. Even in your example:

 You say: "Find me the best deal on a S6."
 I hear: "Fine me the best teal on A.S. six."
 Computer: "Are you looking for steel?"

 Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how 
 do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By 
 raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic 
 words? Cf.:

 "There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE 
 on page six END PARAGRAPH..."

 Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already. 
 Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where 
 exact representation is required, especially in programming:

 "Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state 
 of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range 
 between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a 
 boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member 
 labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero 
 modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING."


I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the 
future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing with 
engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.

For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic with 
natural voice processing.

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the 
 future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing 
 with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.

 For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic 
 with natural voice processing.

People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive.

"Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the 
 future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing 
 with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.

 For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic 
 with natural voice processing.

 People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive.

Unless you've been alive for a few centuries, they still could be 
right. ;)

"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the 
 future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing 
 with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.

 For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic 
 with natural voice processing.

 People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive.

You missed my remark about the age of computing versus other arts 
from engineering.

We are still building bridges with wood and houses with clay.

-
Paulo

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 23 March 2015 at 10:40:12 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the 
 future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing 
 with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.

 For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic 
 with natural voice processing.

 People have been saying this for longer than I'm alive.

 You missed my remark about the age of computing versus other 
 arts from engineering.

 We are still building bridges with wood and houses with clay.

 -
 Paulo

Maybe, and we will certainly see more of this in the future.

However, that future may be far away, considering it is promised 
for decades at this point and still not up and running.

Also, someone will have to code these systems, so the job we do 
now will still be necessary.

"Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote:
 On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +0000, Joakim via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 [...]
 What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, 
 speech
 recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of 
 both.
 Rather than writing a script to scrape several shopping 
 websites for
 the price of a Galaxy S6, I'll simply tell the intelligent 
 agent on my
 computer "Find me the best deal on a S6" and it will go find 
 it.

 I dunno, I find that I can express myself far more precisely 
 and
 concisely on the keyboard than I can verbally. Maybe for 
 everyday tasks
 like shopping for the best deals voice recognition is Good 
 Enough(tm),
 but for more complex tasks, I have yet to find something more 
 expressive
 than the keyboard.

 "Find me the best deal on a S6" is only a little more complex 
 than "make me a cup of coffee." Fine for doing predefined tasks 
 but questionable as an ubiquitous input method. It's hard 
 enough for mathematicians to dictate a theorem without using 
 any symbolic notation. There is too much ambiguity and room for 
 interpretation in speech to make it a reliable and easy input 
 method for all tasks. Even in your example:

 You say: "Find me the best deal on a S6."
 I hear: "Fine me the best teal on A.S. six."
 Computer: "Are you looking for steel?"

Just tried it on google's voice search, it thought I said "Find 
me the best deal on a last sex" the first time I tried.  After 
3-4 more tries- "a sex," "nsx," etc- it finally got it right.  
But it never messed up anything before "on," only the 
intentionally difficult S6, which requires context to understand. 
  Ask that question to the wrong person and they'd have no idea 
what you meant by S6 either.

My point is that the currently deployed, state-of-the-art systems 
are already much better than what you'd hear or what you think 
the computer would guess, and soon they will get that last bit 
right too.

 Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how 
 do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By 
 raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic 
 words? Cf.:

 "There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE 
 on page six END PARAGRAPH..."

Just read that out normally and it'll be smart enough to know 
that the upper-case terms you highlighted are punctuation marks 
and not part of the sentence, by using various grammar and word 
frequency heuristics.  In the rare occurrence of real ambiguity, 
you'll be able to step down to a lower-level editing mode and 
correct it.

Mixing languages is already hellish with keyboards and will be a 
lot easier with speech recognition.

 Very awkward, if talking to oneself wasn't awkward already.

Put a headset on and speak a bit lower and nobody watching will 
know what you're saying or who you're saying it to.

 Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where 
 exact representation is required, especially in programming:

 "Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state 
 of the machine labelled ES and an integer number in range 
 between two and six inclusive labelled X. The result of M1 is a 
 boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if the ES member 
 labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero 
 modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING."

As Paulo alludes to, the current textual representation of 
programming languages is optimized for keyboard entry.  
Programming languages themselves will change to allow fluid 
speech input.

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:13:13 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
 Just for fun. A visualization of the problem from 2007 (I doubt 
 there was breakthrough meanwhile)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzJ0CytAsec

Got a couple minutes into that before I knew current speech 
recognition is much better, as it has progressed by leaps and 
bounds over the intervening eight years.  Doesn't mean it's good 
enough to throw away your keyboard yet, but it's nowhere near 
that bad anymore.

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:47:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 It's about the ability to abstract, that's
 currently missing from today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would 
 willingly leave
 my text-based interfaces behind if you could show me a GUI that 
 gives me
 the same (or better) abstraction power as the expressiveness of 
 a CLI
 script, for example. Contemporary GUIs fail me on the following 
 counts:

 1) Expressiveness: there is no simple way of conveying complex

--snip--
 5) Precision: Even when working with graphical data, I prefer 
 text-based
 interfaces where practical, not because text is the best way to 
 work
 with them -- it's quite inefficient, in fact -- but because I 
 can
 specify the exact coordinates of object X and the exact 
 displacement(s)
 I desire, rather than fight with the inherently imprecise mouse 
 movement
 and getting myself a wrist aneurysm trying to position object X
 precisely in a GUI. I have yet to see a GUI that allows you to 
 specify
 things in a precise way without essentially dropping back to a
 text-based interface (e.g., an input field that requires you to 
 type in
 numbers... which is actually not a bad solution; many GUIs 
 don't even
 provide that, but instead give you the dreaded slider control 
 which is
 inherently imprecise and extremely cumbersome to use. Or worse, 
 the text
 box with the inconveniently-small 5-pixel up/down arrows that 
 changes
 the value by 0.1 per mouse click, thereby requiring an 
 impractical
 number of clicks to get you to the right value -- if you're 
 really
 unlucky, you can't even type in an explicit number but can only 
 use
 those microscopic arrows to change it).

A lot of this is simply that you are a different kind of computer 
user than the vast majority of computer users.  You want to drive 
a Mustang with a manual transmission and a beast of an engine, 
whereas most computer users are perfectly happy with their Taurus 
with automatic transmission.  A touch screen or WIMP GUI suits 
their mundane tasks best, while you need more expressiveness and 
control so you use the CLI.

The great promise of voice interfaces is that they will _both_ be 
simple enough for casual users and expressive enough for power 
users, while being very efficient and powerful for both.  We 
still have some work to do to get these speech recognition 
engines there, but once we do, the entire visual interface to 
your computer will have to be redone to best suit voice input and 
nobody will use touch, mice, _or_ keyboards after that.

FG <home fgda.pl> writes:

On 2015-03-21 at 20:13, Joakim wrote:
 "Find me the best deal on a S6"

 [...]
 Just tried it on google's voice search, it thought I said "Find me the best
deal on a last sex" the first time I tried.

Obviously Google tries to converge the query with what is usually searched for.
OTOH that's one of the areas you probably wouldn't want to browse through using
a voice interface. :)


 "There was this famous quote QUOTE to be or not to be END QUOTE on page six
END PARAGRAPH..."

 Just read that out normally and it'll be smart enough to know that the
upper-case terms you highlighted are punctuation marks and not part of the
sentence, by using various grammar and word frequency heuristics.  In the rare
occurrence of real ambiguity, you'll be able to step down to a lower-level
editing mode and correct it.

Yeah, I've exaggerated the problem. The deciding factor will be the required
amount of stepping down to do low-level editing, even with a system supported
by good machine learning, considering all the homonyms and words having many
meanings. But let's assume that this was solved. I think the remaining "END
PARAGRAPH", "OPEN BRACE" or "COMMA" problem will go away with a compromise:
people will just tell stories like they normally do, and let the punctuation be
added automatically using AST, interval and intonation analyses. And the dying
breed of writers who care about punctuation very much will continue using
keyboards.


 Therefore I just cannot imagine voice being used anywhere where exact
representation is required, especially in programming:

 "Define M1 as a function that takes in two arguments. The state of the machine
labelled ES and an integer number in range between two and six inclusive
labelled X. The result of M1 is a boolean. M1 shall return true if and only if
the ES member labelled squat THATS SQUAT WITH A T AT THE END is equal to zero
modulo B. OH SHIT IT WAS NOT B BUT X. SCRATCH EVERYTHING."

 As Paulo alludes to, the current textual representation of programming
languages is optimized for keyboard entry. Programming languages themselves
will change to allow fluid speech input.

That's true, programming languages will have to change. For example the
distinction between lower and upper case is artificial and it was the biggest
stumbling block in that video as well. That will have to go away along with
other stuff. But if you look at my function definition, it doesn't have that,
nor does it use parentheses, semicolons, etc., so it's "voice-ready". My
question is: at which point would that be considered an efficient method to
define a program's component that we would choose to use instead of the current
succinct symbolic notation?


 We still have some work to do to get these speech recognition engines there,
but once we do, the entire visual interface to your computer will have to be
redone to best suit voice input and *nobody* will use touch, mice, _or_
keyboards after that.

Yeah, right, people will create drawings with voice commands. :)  Every
interface has its rightful domain and voice ain't best for everything. Or do
you mean that touch will go away but instead people will be waving their hands
around?

"Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 20:51:52 UTC, FG wrote:
 But if you look at my function definition, it doesn't have 
 that, nor does it use parentheses, semicolons, etc., so it's 
 "voice-ready". My question is: at which point would that be 
 considered an efficient method to define a program's component 
 that we would choose to use instead of the current succinct 
 symbolic notation?

We will probably keep some variation on the current textual 
symbolic notation but develop verbal shorthand and IDEs that 
enable faster programming than even keyboards allow today.

 Yeah, right, people will create drawings with voice commands. 
 :)  Every interface has its rightful domain and voice ain't 
 best for everything. Or do you mean that touch will go away but 
 instead people will be waving their hands around?

Yes, hand and fingers, as I said before, and you will even be 
able to "paint" in 3D:

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/573/hands-microsoft-hololens

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 21:46:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Of course. But we're talking here about interfaces for 
 *programmers*,
 not for your average Joe, for whom a pretty GUI with a button 
 or two
 would suffice.

When you said "I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
dinosaur," you seemed to be talking about more than just 
programmers.

 This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day 
 will ever
 come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on 
 natural
 language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say 
 that
 heuristics can solve this, I call BS on that. Heuristics are 
 bug-prone
 and unreliable (because otherwise they'd be algorithms!), 
 precisely
 because they fail to capture the essence of the problem, but 
 are merely
 crutches to get us mostly there in lieu of an actual solution.

You don't have to handle full "natural language" to handle voice 
input, you can constrain the user to a verbal shorthand for 
certain tasks.  Eventually, you can loosen that requirement as 
the recognition engines get better.  You can never have 
algorithms that handle all the complexity of human speech, 
especially since the speech recognition engine has no 
understanding of what the words actually mean.  But thousands 
upon thousands of heuristics might just do the job.

 The inherent ambiguity in natural language comes not from some 
 kind of
 inherent flaw as most people tend to believe, but it's actually 
 a
 side-effect of the brain's ability at context-sensitive 
 comprehension.
 The exact same utterance, spoken in different contexts, can 
 mean totally
 different things, and the brain has no problem with that 
 (provided it is
 given sufficient context, of course). The brain is also 
 constantly
 optimizing itself -- if it can convey its intended meaning in 
 fewer,
 simpler words, it will prefer to do that instead of going 
 through the
 effort of uttering the full phrase. This is one of the main 
 factors
 behind language change, which happens over time and is mostly
 unconscious.  Long, convoluted phrases, if spoken often enough, 
 tend to
 contract into shorter, sometimes ambiguous, utterances, as long 
 as there
 is sufficient context to disambiguate. This is why we have a 
 tendency
 toward acronyms -- the brain is optimizing away the long 
 utterance in
 preference to a short acronym, which, based on the context of a 
 group of
 speakers who mutually share similar contexts (e.g., computer 
 lingo), is
 unambiguous, but may very well be ambiguous in a wider context. 
 If I
 talk to you about UFCS, you'd immediately understand what I was 
 talking
 about, but if I said that to my wife, she would have no idea 
 what I just
 said -- she may not even realize it's an acronym, because it 
 sounds like
 a malformed sentence "you ...". The only way to disambiguate 
 this kind
 of context-specific utterance is to *share* in that context in 
 the first
 place. Talk to a Java programmer about UFCS, and he probably 
 wouldn't
 know what you just said either, unless he has been reading up 
 on D.

This acronym example is actually fairly easy for the computer to 
handle, given its great memory.  But yes, there are many contexts 
where the meaning of the words is necessary to disambiguate what 
is meant and without some sort of AI, you have to rely on various 
heuristics.

 The only way speech recognition can acquire this level of 
 context in
 order to disambiguate is to customize itself to that specific 
 user -- in
 essence learn his personal lingo, pick up his (sub)culture, 
 learn the
 contexts associated with his areas of interest, even adapt to 
 his
 peculiarities of pronunciation. If software can get to this 
 level, it
 might as well pass the Turing test, 'cos then it'd have enough 
 context
 to carry out an essentially human conversation.  I'd say we're 
 far, far
 from that point today, and it's not clear we'd ever get there.

I'd say we're fairly close, given the vast computing power in 
even our mobile devices these days, and that is nowhere near the 
Turing test, as extracting a bunch of personalized info and 
contextual dictionaries is nowhere close to the complexity of a 
computer generating a human-like answer to any question a human 
asks it.

 We haven't even mastered context-sensitive languages, except 
 via the crutch
 of parsing a context-free grammar and then apply a patchwork of 
 semantic
 analysis after the fact, let alone natural language, which is 
 not only
 context-sensitive but may depend on context outside of the input
 (cultural background, implicit common shared knowledge, etc.). 
 Before we
 can get there, we'd have to grapple with knowledge 
 representation,
 context-sensitive semantics, and all those hard problems that 
 today seem
 to have no tractable solution in sight.

Certain of these can be dealt with by heuristics, others are too 
hard to deal with right now, but likely wouldn't make much of a 
difference in accuracy anyway.

 P.S. Haha, it looks like my Perl script has serendipitously 
 selected a
 quote that captures the inherent ambiguity of natural language 
 -- you
 can't even tell, at a glance, where the verbs are! I'd like to 
 see an
 algorithm parse *that* (and then see it fall flat on its face 
 when I
 actually meant one of the "non-standard" interpretations of it, 
 such as
 if this were in the context of a sci-fi movie where there are 
 insects
 called "time flies"...).

It took me a minute to even figure out what "Fruit flies like a 
banana" meant, as that pair of sentences takes advantage of the 
human heuristic of assuming that two rhyming sentences place 
their verb in the same spot.  But a speech recognition engine 
doesn't _need_ to parse the grammar in those sentences, as it'll 
likely get it just from the pronunciation, so it would likely 
confuse only us humans, who are trying to understand what it 
actually means, and not the computer, which just wants to 
transcribe literally what we said.

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 22:00:21 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
 Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will 
 change. In the beginning of the web the search engines had 
 trouble matching anything but exact phrases, now they are 
 capable of figuring out what you probably wanted.

 Take music composition, people still write notes explicitly as 
 discrete symbols, yet others compose music by recording a song, 
 and then manipulating it (i.e. auto tune). So, even though you 
 can do pitch recognition many probably use discrete interfaces 
 like keyboard or a mouse for writing music, yet new forms of 
 music and composition has come with the ability to process 
 audio in a more intuitive, evolutionary fashion.

Good point, this was a good video from a couple years ago:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/op.wn0ye9uy54xghj puck.auriga.bhead.co.uk

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:58:18 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 HS Teoh is right about context, and the superiority of the 
 written word for organizing and expressing thinking at a very 
 high level.  The nature of human memory and perception means 
 that is unlikely to change very soon, if ever.

Nobody is arguing against text, but of the best way to provide it 
to the computer, whether through tapping keys or voicing it.

On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a 
 decision on a study rather than experience and judgement 
 (including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more 
 data cannot be useful,


 Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. 
 You don't have science without numbers.

But it takes experience and judgement to interpret and 
contextualize those numbers, so we are back to square one. :) 
Note that Laeeth specifically said more data can be useful, only 
that one has to be careful that it's the right data, not just 
data that happens to be lying around.

"Abdulhaq" <alynch4047 gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 would suffice.

 When you said "I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
 dinosaur," you seemed to be talking about more than just 
 programmers.


I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach 
fruition:

http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm

http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html

Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs.

"Joakim" <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:

On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 21:17:26 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 would suffice.

 When you said "I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
 dinosaur," you seemed to be talking about more than just 
 programmers.


 I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach 
 fruition:

 http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm

 http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html

 Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs.

Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the 
second link, the lead programmer supposedly said, "For me TLO 
remains the 1st ever programming wizard. Wrongly advertised and 
promoted, but inherentlyt a 'good idea'."  Considering how 
widespread wizards are in Windows these days, the idea has 
certainly done well.

I do think that that concept of non-technical users providing 
constraints and answering questions is the future of building 
software, it just can't be built by one isolated guy.  The 
configuration and glue code can be auto-generated, but there will 
likely always need to be core libraries written in a programming 
language by programmers.  But the same automation that has put 
most travel agents out of work will one day be applied to most 
programmers too.

"Abdulhaq" <alynch4047 gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 30 March 2015 at 18:49:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 21:17:26 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 would suffice.

 When you said "I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of 
 the dinosaur," you seemed to be talking about more than just 
 programmers.


 I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach 
 fruition:

 http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm

 http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html

 Once finished, there will be no more need to write any 
 programs.

 Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the 
 second link, the lead programmer supposedly said, "For me TLO 
 remains the 1st ever programming wizard. Wrongly advertised and 
 promoted, but inherentlyt a 'good idea'."  Considering how 
 widespread wizards are in Windows these days, the idea has 
 certainly done well.

 I do think that that concept of non-technical users providing 
 constraints and answering questions is the future of building 
 software, it just can't be built by one isolated guy.  The 
 configuration and glue code can be auto-generated, but there 
 will likely always need to be core libraries written in a 
 programming language by programmers.  But the same automation 
 that has put most travel agents out of work will one day be 
 applied to most programmers too.

It was such an exciting time back then, but most of us who had a 
clue knew that it certainly couldn't be done (at that time, 
anyway). Around about the same time there was another article in 
PCW (a great magazine by the way) about a data compression tool 
that you could rerun over and over again to make files smaller 
and smaller ;-). I wish we could read the back issues like we can 
with Byte (on archive,org). Even the adverts are great to read 
for us old hands.

As to whether we'll ever do it, I agree with previous comments 
that it's related to understanding language - context is 
everything, and that takes an understanding of life and its 
paraphernalia.

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:49:00 +0000, Joakim wrote:

 On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 21:17:26 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
 On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 18:27:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
 would suffice.

 When you said "I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the
 dinosaur," you seemed to be talking about more than just programmers.

 I'm still waiting for The Last One (from Feb 1981) to reach fruition:

 http://www.tebbo.com/presshere/html/wf8104.htm

 http://teblog.typepad.com/david_tebbutt/2007/07/the-last-one-pe.html

 Once finished, there will be no more need to write any programs.

=20
 Heh, that article is pretty funny. :) In the comments for the second
 link, the lead programmer supposedly said, "For me TLO remains the 1st
 ever programming wizard. Wrongly advertised and promoted, but
 inherentlyt a 'good idea'."  Considering how widespread wizards are in
 Windows these days, the idea has certainly done well.
=20
 I do think that that concept of non-technical users providing
 constraints and answering questions is the future of building software,
 it just can't be built by one isolated guy.  The configuration and glue
 code can be auto-generated, but there will likely always need to be core
 libraries written in a programming language by programmers.  But the
 same automation that has put most travel agents out of work will one day
 be applied to most programmers too.

that would be a big day!=

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 07:13:10PM +0000, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
 On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:47:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
It's about the ability to abstract, that's currently missing from
today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would willingly leave my text-based
interfaces behind if you could show me a GUI that gives me the same
(or better) abstraction power as the expressiveness of a CLI script,
for example. Contemporary GUIs fail me on the following counts:

1) Expressiveness: there is no simple way of conveying complex

 --snip--
5) Precision: Even when working with graphical data, I prefer
text-based interfaces where practical, not because text is the best
way to work with them -- it's quite inefficient, in fact -- but
because I can specify the exact coordinates of object X and the exact
displacement(s) I desire, rather than fight with the inherently
imprecise mouse movement and getting myself a wrist aneurysm trying
to position object X precisely in a GUI. I have yet to see a GUI that
allows you to specify things in a precise way without essentially
dropping back to a text-based interface (e.g., an input field that
requires you to type in numbers... which is actually not a bad
solution; many GUIs don't even provide that, but instead give you the
dreaded slider control which is inherently imprecise and extremely
cumbersome to use. Or worse, the text box with the
inconveniently-small 5-pixel up/down arrows that changes the value by
0.1 per mouse click, thereby requiring an impractical number of
clicks to get you to the right value -- if you're really unlucky, you
can't even type in an explicit number but can only use those
microscopic arrows to change it).

 
 A lot of this is simply that you are a different kind of computer user
 than the vast majority of computer users.  You want to drive a Mustang
 with a manual transmission and a beast of an engine, whereas most
 computer users are perfectly happy with their Taurus with automatic
 transmission.  A touch screen or WIMP GUI suits their mundane tasks
 best, while you need more expressiveness and control so you use the
 CLI.

Of course. But we're talking here about interfaces for *programmers*,
not for your average Joe, for whom a pretty GUI with a button or two
would suffice.


 The great promise of voice interfaces is that they will _both_ be
 simple enough for casual users and expressive enough for power users,
 while being very efficient and powerful for both.

Call me a skeptic, but I'll believe this promise when I see it.


 We still have some work to do to get these speech recognition engines
 there, but once we do, the entire visual interface to your computer
 will have to be redone to best suit voice input and nobody will use
 touch, mice, _or_ keyboards after that.

This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day will ever
come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on natural
language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say that
heuristics can solve this, I call BS on that. Heuristics are bug-prone
and unreliable (because otherwise they'd be algorithms!), precisely
because they fail to capture the essence of the problem, but are merely
crutches to get us mostly there in lieu of an actual solution.

The inherent ambiguity in natural language comes not from some kind of
inherent flaw as most people tend to believe, but it's actually a
side-effect of the brain's ability at context-sensitive comprehension.
The exact same utterance, spoken in different contexts, can mean totally
different things, and the brain has no problem with that (provided it is
given sufficient context, of course). The brain is also constantly
optimizing itself -- if it can convey its intended meaning in fewer,
simpler words, it will prefer to do that instead of going through the
effort of uttering the full phrase. This is one of the main factors
behind language change, which happens over time and is mostly
unconscious.  Long, convoluted phrases, if spoken often enough, tend to
contract into shorter, sometimes ambiguous, utterances, as long as there
is sufficient context to disambiguate. This is why we have a tendency
toward acronyms -- the brain is optimizing away the long utterance in
preference to a short acronym, which, based on the context of a group of
speakers who mutually share similar contexts (e.g., computer lingo), is
unambiguous, but may very well be ambiguous in a wider context. If I
talk to you about UFCS, you'd immediately understand what I was talking
about, but if I said that to my wife, she would have no idea what I just
said -- she may not even realize it's an acronym, because it sounds like
a malformed sentence "you ...". The only way to disambiguate this kind
of context-specific utterance is to *share* in that context in the first
place. Talk to a Java programmer about UFCS, and he probably wouldn't
know what you just said either, unless he has been reading up on D.

The only way speech recognition can acquire this level of context in
order to disambiguate is to customize itself to that specific user -- in
essence learn his personal lingo, pick up his (sub)culture, learn the
contexts associated with his areas of interest, even adapt to his
peculiarities of pronunciation. If software can get to this level, it
might as well pass the Turing test, 'cos then it'd have enough context
to carry out an essentially human conversation.  I'd say we're far, far
from that point today, and it's not clear we'd ever get there. We
haven't even mastered context-sensitive languages, except via the crutch
of parsing a context-free grammar and then apply a patchwork of semantic
analysis after the fact, let alone natural language, which is not only
context-sensitive but may depend on context outside of the input
(cultural background, implicit common shared knowledge, etc.). Before we
can get there, we'd have to grapple with knowledge representation,
context-sensitive semantics, and all those hard problems that today seem
to have no tractable solution in sight.

P.S. Haha, it looks like my Perl script has serendipitously selected a
quote that captures the inherent ambiguity of natural language -- you
can't even tell, at a glance, where the verbs are! I'd like to see an
algorithm parse *that* (and then see it fall flat on its face when I
actually meant one of the "non-standard" interpretations of it, such as
if this were in the context of a sci-fi movie where there are insects
called "time flies"...).


T

-- 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 21:46:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day 
 will ever
 come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on 
 natural
 language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say 
 that
 heuristics can solve this, I call BS on that. Heuristics are 
 bug-prone
 and unreliable (because otherwise they'd be algorithms!), 
 precisely
 because they fail to capture the essence of the problem, but 
 are merely
 crutches to get us mostly there in lieu of an actual solution.

Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will 
change. In the beginning of the web the search engines had 
trouble matching anything but exact phrases, now they are capable 
of figuring out what you probably wanted.

Take music composition, people still write notes explicitly as 
discrete symbols, yet others compose music by recording a song, 
and then manipulating it (i.e. auto tune). So, even though you 
can do pitch recognition many probably use discrete interfaces 
like keyboard or a mouse for writing music, yet new forms of 
music and composition has come with the ability to process audio 
in a more intuitive, evolutionary fashion.

Same thing is likely to happen with programming, e.g. a different 
models for computation or at least new ways to modify existing 
components. Like neural simulations, adaptive systems, fuzzy 
logic etc...

You also have areas like program synthesis, genetic programming 
etc, where the computer itself generates the program to fit a 
specified result. When the computer is capable of that you might 
have a more "top down" programming model where you just keep 
adding constraints until you are happy with the result.

"Laeeth Isharc" <laeeth nospamlaeeth.com> writes:

 Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will ni
 change. In the beginning of the web the search engines had 
 trouble matching anything but exact phrases, now they are 
 capable of figuring out what you probably wanted.

As you implicitly recognize later, it's not either/or, in the 
same way that spreadsheets (ugh) constituted a new way of 
programming and people continued to program conventionally 
similar kinds of tasks even as spreadsheets exploded in usage 
(and now we are back to finding it often more convenient to write 
code again, plus the robustness that never went away).

HS Teoh is right about context, and the superiority of the 
written word for organizing and expressing thinking at a very 
high level.  The nature of human memory and perception means that 
is unlikely to change very soon, if ever.

Dr Iain Mcgilchrist (The Master and His Emissary) is very good on 
context, BTW.

 You also have areas like program synthesis, genetic programming 
 etc, where the computer itself generates the program to fit a 
 specified result. When the computer is capable of that you 
 might have a more "top down" programming model where you just 
 keep adding constraints until you are happy with the result.

No doubt these techniques will continue to grow in usefulness (I 
certainly hope so, and am making that bet), but the ultimate 
implications depend on your conception of what creativity is.

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:58:18 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 HS Teoh is right about context, and the superiority of the 
 written word for organizing and expressing thinking at a very 
 high level.  The nature of human memory and perception means 
 that is unlikely to change very soon, if ever.

Actually, the visual system is a lot more powerful than our very 
limited capability of dealing with abstract symbols.

But developing visual languages/tools for programming is very 
challenging and quite expensive given the foundation we have in 
math.

 No doubt these techniques will continue to grow in usefulness 
 (I certainly hope so, and am making that bet), but the ultimate 
 implications depend on your conception of what creativity is.

Unfortunately progress will probably be defined by the industry 
desire to commoditize the programming profession, which basically 
will drive it more towards "configuration" than "construction". 
We already see this? An incredible amount of websites are built 
on top of a technical pile of configurable dung, Wordpress (and 
Php).

Add to this that the new generations of nerds grow up with a 
different knowledge frame (ipads) than the programmers of the 80s 
who grew up with peeks, pokes and machine language. There is 
bound to be some shift in what the typical programmers do.

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:23:27 -0700, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur.
 It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with
 grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may take
 decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness fades
 away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no future in a
 non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of time, or
 something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent dead-end
 with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the
 expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive
 point-and-grunt.

Oberon TUI was really nice, as it combines point-and-click with CLI=20
expressivenes. not only you can type command almost anywhere and=20
immediately execute it, but you can combine commands in "tools",=20
parameterize commands with "marked window", "selected text" (those were=20
completely independend things), simple text and so on. even window=20
actions like "close", "save" and such was ordinary commands, simply=20
printed at window header.

Oberon Gadgets was an extension of that system, where buttons and so on=20
were simply "nicely drawn area that still executes command on click".=

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +0000, ketmar via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 
 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I 
 fully
 agree.
 
 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the 
 days of
 yore.

 
 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, 
 let alone
 emacs/vim.

 Yeah, I've become so accustomed to the speed of keyboard-based 
 controls
 that every time I use my wife's Windows laptop, I feel so 
 frustrated at
 the rodent dependence and its slowness that I want to throw the 
 thing
 out the window.

 But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. 
 rodent... it's
 about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands 
 at the
 CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a 
 powerful
 advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a 
 script.
 Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means 
 complex
 operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives 
 with
 greater expressiveness.

 Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you 
 can't
 abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of 
 keyboard
 shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the 
 realm of
 micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open 
 submenu,
 click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at
 encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've 
 seen
 attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be 
 useful.) You
 can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is 
 bound to
 what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series of 
 mouse
 interactions the same way you can take a bash script and 
 parametrize it
 to do something far beyond what the original sequence of typed 
 commands
 did.

 Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the 
 dinosaur.
 It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language 
 with
 grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It 
 may take
 decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI 
 trendiness fades
 away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no 
 future in a
 non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the test of 
 time, or
 something else altogether will come along to replace the rodent 
 dead-end
 with something more powerful. Something abstractible with the
 expressiveness of language and semantics, not regressive
 point-and-grunt.


 T

In general I'm in agreement with you, but I think there *is* a 
place for more visual structure than a terminal editing a 
text-file can give you (essentially 1-D or maybe 1.5D, whatever 
that means). Some models/data/tasks are inherently more intuitive 
and quicker to work with in 2D.

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:10:37PM +0000, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

[...]
But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's
about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the
CLI, while on the surface looks so tedious, actually has a powerful
advantage: you can abstract it. You can encapsulate it into a script.
Most well-designed CLI programs are scriptable, which means complex
operations can be encapsulated and then used as new primitives with
greater expressiveness.

Sure you can have keyboard shortcuts in GUI programs, but you can't
abstract a series of mouse clicks and drags or a series of keyboard
shortcuts into a single action. They will forever remain in the realm
of micromanagement -- click this menu, move mouse to item 6, open
submenu, click that, etc.. I have yet to see a successful attempt at
encapsulation a series of actions as a single meta-action (I've seen
attempts at it, but none that were compelling enough to be useful.)
You can't build meta-meta-actions from meta-actions. Everything is
bound to what-you-see-is-all-you-get. You can't parametrize a series
of mouse interactions the same way you can take a bash script and
parametrize it to do something far beyond what the original sequence
of typed commands did.

Ultimately, I think rodent-based UIs will go the way of the dinosaur.
It's a regression from the expressiveness of an actual language with
grammar and semantics back to caveman-style point-and-grunt. It may
take decades, maybe even centuries, before the current GUI trendiness
fades away, but eventually it will become obvious that there is no
future in a non-abstractible UI. Either CLIs will be proven by the
test of time, or something else altogether will come along to replace
the rodent dead-end with something more powerful. Something
abstractible with the expressiveness of language and semantics, not
regressive point-and-grunt.


T

 
 In general I'm in agreement with you, but I think there *is* a place
 for more visual structure than a terminal editing a text-file can give
 you (essentially 1-D or maybe 1.5D, whatever that means). Some
 models/data/tasks are inherently more intuitive and quicker to work
 with in 2D.

Certainly, some tasks are more suited for 2D, or even 3D, manipulation
than editing a text file, say. But just because task X is more
profitably manipulated with a 2D interface, does not imply that *every*
task is better manipulated the same way.

But at a more fundamental level, it's not really about text vs. graphics
or 1D (1.5D) vs. 2D. It's about the ability to abstract, that's
currently missing from today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would willingly leave
my text-based interfaces behind if you could show me a GUI that gives me
the same (or better) abstraction power as the expressiveness of a CLI
script, for example. Contemporary GUIs fail me on the following counts:

1) Expressiveness: there is no simple way of conveying complex ideas
like "from here until the first line that contains the word 'END',
replace all occurrences of 'x' with 'y'". A single sed command could
accomplish this, whereas using contemporary GUI idioms you'd need to
invent a morass of hard-to-navigate nested submenus.

2) Speed: I can type the sed command in far less time than it takes to
move my hand to the mouse, move the cursor across the screen, and click
through said morass of nested submenus to select the requisite
checkboxes to express what I want to do.

3) Abstraction power: I can parametrize said sed command, and put a
whole collection of such commands into a script, that I can thereafter
refer to by name to execute the same commands again, *without having to
remember* the individual details of said commands.

4) Annotative power: As somebody else pointed out, I can add comments to
a script explaining what is needed to perform task X, and why the given
steps were chosen for that purpose. This alleviates the need to memorize
obscure details about the system that you don't really care about to get
your job done, as well as serve to jog your memory when something went
wrong and you need to recall why things were done this way and how you
might be able to fix it. I simply cannot see how these kinds of
meta-annotations can even remotely be shoehorned into contemporary GUI
idioms.

5) Precision: Even when working with graphical data, I prefer text-based
interfaces where practical, not because text is the best way to work
with them -- it's quite inefficient, in fact -- but because I can
specify the exact coordinates of object X and the exact displacement(s)
I desire, rather than fight with the inherently imprecise mouse movement
and getting myself a wrist aneurysm trying to position object X
precisely in a GUI. I have yet to see a GUI that allows you to specify
things in a precise way without essentially dropping back to a
text-based interface (e.g., an input field that requires you to type in
numbers... which is actually not a bad solution; many GUIs don't even
provide that, but instead give you the dreaded slider control which is
inherently imprecise and extremely cumbersome to use. Or worse, the text
box with the inconveniently-small 5-pixel up/down arrows that changes
the value by 0.1 per mouse click, thereby requiring an impractical
number of clicks to get you to the right value -- if you're really
unlucky, you can't even type in an explicit number but can only use
those microscopic arrows to change it).


A GUI that is NOT rodent-based would alleviate a large part of these
problems, actually.  I've been using Vimperator for my browser recently,
and in spite of its warts (mostly due to the fact that it's merely a
customization layer on top of an essentially rodent-dependent browser
core), it's proven to be a far more efficient way of using a GUI browser
than the rodent. Well, OK, it's hearkening back to the CLI days of modal
editors (y'know, vim), but it proves that it's not really *graphics* per
se that are the problem, but it's today's obsession with the rodent
that's the source of much of my complaint.


T

-- 
Just because you survived after you did it, doesn't mean it wasn't stupid!

"weaselcat" <weaselcat gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:04:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I 
 fully agree.
 
 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days 
 of yore.

 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, 
 let alone
 emacs/vim.

I wish there was a blend of modern IDEs with the 
editing/customizability power of emacs/vim. mono-d and DDT's 
utilities are far ahead of anything available for D in emacs/vim, 
but the actual IDEs themselves are difficult to work with.

Rikki Cattermole <alphaglosined gmail.com> writes:

On 21/03/2015 8:40 a.m., weaselcat wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:04:20 UTC, ketmar wrote:
 On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:

 Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I fully agree.

 Every time I am on UNIX I feel like a time travel to the days of yore.

 being on non-nix system is a torture. there aren't even gcc, let alone
 emacs/vim.

 I wish there was a blend of modern IDEs with the editing/customizability
 power of emacs/vim. mono-d and DDT's utilities are far ahead of anything
 available for D in emacs/vim, but the actual IDEs themselves are
 difficult to work with.

You guys are giving me ideas...

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 11:48:20 UTC, w0rp wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow 
 Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those 
 that follow C like syntax.

 That's probably skewed by C being the most popular language, 
 which is optimised for bug creation.

The guy explain that for beginner it is worse, but after 3+ years 
of experience, C syntax wins. Most likely because C style has 
become a de facto standard, and that the benefit of 
standardization outweigh the initial confusion.

He explains that the same goes for strong typing.

"Laeeth Isharc" <laeeth nospamlaeeth.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 Language features should be tested with real users using 
 scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly added 
 to a language.

There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a 
decision on a study rather than experience and judgement 
(including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more 
data cannot be useful, if thoughtfully considered.  The problem 
is that people tend to emphasize tangible hard data over 
sometimes more important but less easy to measure factors - the 
drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost 'because that is 
where the light is'.

So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny 
'scientific' approaches when their value remains yet to be proven.


Laeeth.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 3/20/2015 3:55 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny 'scientific' approaches
 when their value remains yet to be proven.

True. Scientific studies of human behavior are notoriously difficult to remove 
hidden biases from.

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny 
 'scientific' approaches when their value remains yet to be 
 proven.

I sense a recursive problem here...

"Atila Neves" <atila.neves gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 Language features should be tested with real users using 
 scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly 
 added to a language.

 There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a 
 decision on a study rather than experience and judgement 
 (including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more 
 data cannot be useful,


Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. 
You don't have science without numbers.

Atila

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 Language features should be tested with real users using 
 scientific validation processes, instead of being blindly 
 added to a language.

 There is nothing intrinsically more scientific about basing a 
 decision on a study rather than experience and judgement 
 (including aesthetic judgement), which is not to say that more 
 data cannot be useful,


 Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. 
 You don't have science without numbers.

 Atila

But then, how can I keep my delusions and pretend they are fact 
because I have experience, judgment and, it goes without saying, 
a great sense of aesthetic  ?

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:46:40 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 But then, how can I keep my delusions and pretend they are fact 
 because I have experience, judgment and, it goes without 
 saying, a great sense of aesthetic  ?

You will keep your delusions and pretend they are fact until you 
take a course on the philosophy of science. The debate about 
qualitative and quantitative methods is long forgone. If you want 
a retake on that you will have to travel 50 years back in time.

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
 Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. 
 You don't have science without numbers.

WTF?

FG <home fgda.pl> writes:

On 2015-03-22 at 11:03, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:
 On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
 Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't measurable. You don't have
science without numbers.

 WTF?

Heh, everything is measurable, but sometimes the chosen metrics and analysis
are just ridiculous and not worth the paper they are printed on, even though
all rules of scientific reasoning were followed. :)

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 10:24:16 UTC, FG wrote:
 On 2015-03-22 at 11:03, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= 
 <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:
 On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
 Of course there is. Experience and judgement aren't 
 measurable. You don't have science without numbers.

 WTF?

 Heh, everything is measurable, but sometimes the chosen metrics 
 and analysis are just ridiculous and not worth the paper they 
 are printed on, even though all rules of scientific reasoning 
 were followed. :)

Almost right. Even a well conducted quantitative study might be 
misleading because it measures correlation and not causality. 
Causality is hard nut to crack and it will in the end hang on our 
beliefs in the methodology, the study, the tools, the objects 
being studied, the people conducting the studies and the "already 
accepted assumptions in the field" (established theories which 
might be wrong) etc. So in essence, science is a belief system 
(not all that different from religion, although the contrary is 
often claimed).

This all becomes easier to reason about if people give up the 
idea that science represents "the truth". It does not, it 
presents models that are hypothetical in nature. These may be 
useful or not useful, but are usually incomplete and somewhat 
incorrect... In medical sciences correlation based models can be 
very useful, or very harmful (when incomplete on critical 
parameters such as negative effects of radiation).

In the design field the theories used are applied to a future 
unknown setting so correlation has very low value and insight in 
causality has a very high value. Meaning: a somewhat flawed high 
level model about how human beings think and react, about 
causality, might lead to better design than a more limited and 
correct low level model of how the brain works based on 
correlation.

Whether "everything is measurable" depends on what you mean. You 
might say that qualitative studies involves measuring because 
everything you perceive are measurements. In the real world, the 
data (what you have collected) will usually be inadequate for 
what is being "claimed". After all, it is a society of "publish 
or perish". So you need many independent studies to get something 
solid, but how many fields can produce that? Only the big ones, 
right?

"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:

On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 07:37:04 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
 An example that stuck with me was that languages that follow 
 Algol/Pascal syntax lead themselves to less bugs, than those 
 that follow C like syntax.

 There are quite a few other examples. Also the mention that as 
 far as the researcher is aware, only Microsoft is pursuing such 
 studies for language features. Don Syme is in the audience and 
 gives an example how they did it for .NET generics.

Anything wrong with VB.NET?