• LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    The Tandy (i.e. Radio Shack) TRS80 was affectionately known back then as the Trash 80. My first experience at programming was in high school in 1971 or 72 on a paper-roll teletype style terminal, that was connected to a PDP-11 at OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry). It wasn’t even a class, just an after-school activity run by our math teacher, Mr. Tuhy. My masterpiece was a tic-tac-toe program that could always win if it went first, and always at least tie if the human went first. I accidentally deleted it lol.

  • jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    To be fair, we are at a point where most users will never need to program anything as most needs are already met by existing work. The whole “there’s an app for that” marketing had a lot of truth to it.

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Also most student-age people today who would have become programmers 20 years ago probably won’t, because AI will be generating most code. The definition of “programming” will change to writing and tweaking effective specs for AI to generate code from. Back in the 80s and 90s I liked to say our ultimate goal as programmers was to eliminate our own jobs. Well I’ll be darned…

  • TheV2@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Why should they? Less users are programming anything, but more people have become users of computers in the first place. And we have more users of computers, precisely because the levels of abstraction do not require the ordinary user to program anything. Today’s ordinary user is more “ordinary” than fifty years ago. This development of making a tool or subject more accessible to the layman, by hiding the complexities with abstractions and yet allowing more skilled users to gain advantages by peeling away the abstractions, is present in many different fields throughout the history of mankind.

    If you look closely, it is not really surprising. Not even a problem at all. In fact, if you have the simple understanding that maybe somebody doesn’t want to program, not because they are a stupid idiot or a lazy normie consumer, but because they simply don’t give a shit about it, follow other interests and can contribute to the world with other skills, then the observation that most users are not programming anything, is insanely unproblematic.

    • Travelator@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 minutes ago

      140 years after the automobile, most drivers can’t or won’t design and produce new automobile products.

      Isn’t that a closer analogy?

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Car user manuals used to tell you how to refill the battery. Now they tell you not to drink what’s in the battery.

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That’s because we don’t need to fill our battery anymore. The warning is because of those older folks who did sip the battery acid.

  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I dunno about this; IME even when it was highly approachable most people didn’t do it. I was around back then, got my first Commodore in '84, and even the Geek / Nerd circles were mostly just for people swapping copies of commercial software. It wasn’t any better when I graduated High School in '91 and even in College almost no one outside of STEM was doing any programming.

    It wasn’t and still isn’t a popular activity.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Programming is alien. It’s fundamentally hard to comprehend, because the computer will do exactly what you tell it to, regardless of what you mean. You have to think for the both of you.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’m not sure I agree. I think most people can understand recipes or instruction lists and totally could program, if they wanted to and had to. They just don’t want to and usually don’t have to. They find it boring, tedious and it’s also increasingly inaccessible (e.g. JavaScript tooling is the classic example).

      But I think mainly people just don’t find it interesting. To understand this, think about law. You absolutely have the intellect to be a lawyer (you clever clog), so why aren’t you? For me, it’s mind-numbingly boring. If I was really into law and enjoyed decoding their unnecessarily obtuse language then I totally would be a lawyer. But I don’t.

      • Strykker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There was a very noticeable drop off in people at my university computer science program after the first programming class. There is an actual wall there for a lot of people in terms of comprehending how programming works, things like assigning a value to a variable where difficult concepts to some.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    College computer science courses have had to go back to teaching students what computer files and folders are. A lot of computer programs have simplified themselves as ease of use overtook features as a driving factor for use.

    Most people don’t know how to program because they don’t know the basics of computing.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Nonsense. There are way more programmers now than there were in the Windows 3.1/9x era when you couldn’t avoid files and folders. Ok more people are exposed to computers in general, but still… Anyone who has the interest to learn isn’t going to be stopped by not knowing what file and folders are.

      It’s like saying people don’t become car mechanics because you don’t have to hand crank your engine any more.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s like saying people don’t become car mechanics because you don’t have to hand crank your engine any more.

        I look at it more as most people don’t need to know how to do basic car maintenance because cars and the systems surrounding cars are designed to where you don’t need to know how to do basic car maintenance to drive a car.

        People can learn to program, but the vast majority don’t have to know the basics of how a computer works to use one. Because of that, the vast majority of users aren’t going to have the drive to learn to program.

  • floofloof
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I dunno. I’ve been programming on and off since the 1980s and professionally since the early 2000s. It still always takes me forever to build anything worthwhile and even longer to maintain it. Most software these days is complicated enough that it requires many people to build and maintain. I’m not sure that “everyone should be equipped to program what they need” was realistic even back in the 1980s, let alone with today’s complexity.

    Most users don’t want to be sucked down a bottomless time hole just getting their computer to do a thing it won’t do, and understandably prefer to have someone else suffer this for them, then use what was built.

    So I don’t know about the goal of everyone being able to program. I still think it’s a worthwhile goal that people should have full control over their machines so that they can install and uninstall what they want, configure devices to work the best way for them, and turn off the features that don’t serve the user at all. And I think open source software is great for bringing technically inclined people together to collaborate on what’s actually useful to people.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      I agree entirely, especially as modern systems massively ballooning the required knowledge and skill.

      However, I do think there could’ve perhaps been a happy medium, where OS’s retained and continued to develop a simple, built in way to program easily and without setup to retain the spirit of what BASIC provided.

      I guess I’m imagining a sort’ve evolved version of Hypercard, which seemed to be on the path of providing something like that.

      The beauty of HyperCard is that it lets people program without having to learn how to write code — what I call “programming for the rest of us”. HyperCard has made it possible for people to do things they wouldn’t have ever thought of doing in the past without a lot of heavy-duty programming. It’s let a lot of non-programmers, like me, into that loop.

      David Lingwood, APDA

      There seems to be Decker as a spiritual successor, which is pretty neat.

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Steve Jobs doing a hiring interview in Apple’s early days:

          https://folklore.org/Gobble_Gobble_Gobble.html?sort=date

          In January, we began interviewing candidates for the software manager position.

          As soon as the guy walked into the room, I knew it was going to be problematic, because he seemed extremely straight-laced and uptight, dressing more like an insurance salesman than a technologist.

          I could tell that Steve was losing patience when he started to roll his eyes at the candidate’s responses. Steve began to grill him with some unconventional questions.

          “How old were you when you lost your virginity?”, Steve asked

          The candidate wasn’t sure if he heard correctly. “What did you say?”

          Steve repeated the question, changing it slightly. “Are you a virgin?”. Burrell and I started to laugh, as the candidate became more disconcerted. He didn’t know how to respond.

          Steve changed the subject. “How many times have you taken LSD?”

          The poor guy was turning varying shades of red, so I tried to change the subject and asked a straight-forward technical question. But when he started to give a long-winded response, Steve got impatient again.

          “Gooble, gobble, gobble, gobble”, Steve started making turkey noises. This was too much for Burrell and myself, and we all started cracking up. “Gobble, gobble, gobble”, Steve continued, laughing himself now.

          At this point, the candidate stood up. “I guess I’m not the right guy for this job”, he said.

          “I guess you’re not”, Steve responded. “I think this interview is over.”

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I’ve felt for a long time that continuous gradients of complexity with sensible defaults all along the spectrum is a general architectural pattern necessary for wide spread empowerment. But I don’t see anyone thinking in those terms. Maybe it’s just me, but it feels obvious. As you say, but everyone is going to dive into the source code. So let them find the level at which they’re comfortable.

      • floofloof
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        That’s a good way of thinking about it. Even experienced developers appreciate being able to put the bones of an application together as quickly as possible so they can focus on the bits that make it unique.

        • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Yea, and then being able to traverse the layers in a reasonable way when needed/desired without needing be stuck or live in one of those layers.

  • chaos@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I see this as an accessibility problem, computers have incredible power but taking advantage of it requires a very specific way of thinking and the drive to push through adversity (the computer constantly and correctly telling you “you’re doing it wrong”) that a lot of people can’t or don’t want to do. I don’t think they’re wrong or lazy to feel that way, and it’s a barrier to entry just like a set of stairs is to a wheelchair user.

    The question is what to do about it, and there’s so much we as an industry should be doing before we even start to think about getting “normies” writing code or automating their phones. Using a computer sucks ass in so many ways for regular people, you buy something cheap and it’s slow as hell, it’s crapped up with adware and spyware out of the box, scammers are everywhere ready to cheat you out of your money… anyone here is likely immune to all that or knows how to navigate it but most people are just muddling by.

    If we got past all that, I think it’d be a question of meeting users where they are. I have a car but I couldn’t replace the brakes, nor do I want to learn or try to learn, but that’s okay. My car is as accessible as I want it to be, and the parts that aren’t accessible, I go another route (bring it to a mechanic who can do the things I can’t). We can do this with computers too, make things easy for regular people but don’t try to make them all master programmers or tell them they aren’t “really” using it unless they’re coding. Bring the barrier down as low is it can go but don’t expect everyone to be trying to jump over it all the time, because they likely care about other things more.

  • urata@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    14 hours ago

    When I was a kid in the 90s I had a PC that came with Windows 3.1 and it had QBasic. I messed around with it a lot. I spent a lot of time reading the built-in documentation.

    I remember making a random password generator, a text-based blackjack game, and some “screensavers” that were basically just drawing a bunch of stuff on the screen and then scrolling it off the top by printing blank lines.

    It took quite a bit of time to do that pretty basic stuff, so it’s really not a surprise to me that most people aren’t making computer programs today. Most of anything an average person could hope to program has already been done and made available for free.

    • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I did basically all those things, or very similar things, in TI-BASIC back in high school. I didn’t care that they had already been done countless times; I had a blast figuring out how to make them work.

      I dearly wish more people would try making basic programs that are 100% their own creation, even if it’s some random string generator. It’s more rewarding than they might think!

      • YerbaYerba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Same here. I missed the lecture of many math classes figuring out basic on my ti84+. I mostly wrote simple games. The calculator made it easy to experiment since all the functionality could be found in menus or a button somewhere.

        • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Yep, same! It’s probably a good thing that I didn’t know the first thing about Z80 assembly or I’d have flunked hard 😂 I would have loved to make my own clone of Phoenix!

  • drspod@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    50 years after BASIC and nothing is written in BASIC.

    To replicate its success from the 80s we would need a language that is simple enough for everyone to learn but actually performant and powerful enough to write an entire operating system and application stack in. Then perhaps non-programmers would feel more inclined to look under the hood, see how things work, and change their program’s behavior.

    The problem though, is that for any reasonably complex system or application, you need to use structured programming. This is what enabled the levels of abstraction that we use to break down programs into layers that can be understood in pieces, and it is what makes large complex software possible without ending up with a mess of spaghetti.

    However it is these abstractions that turn a software’s code into a Domain Specific Language, and endless APIs that need to be learnt and understood by the programmer.

    For programmers it is normal to us that when we want to work on a new codebase we have to learn the idiosyncrasies of the codebase, and learn its DSL and the APIs that it uses, or exposes. But for a non-programmer, this would essentially feel like learning everything about programming from scratch. They would have to become a programmer and develop maintainer skills just to understand what they want to change. (This is why programmer is still a job).

    Perhaps the real value of BASIC was that without structured programming, every program was just a pile of spaghetti that even a child could pull apart with a fork.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Why would a new hypothetical language need to be able to build an OS for everyday people to take interest? I don’t see how that would be the case at all

    • qaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I don’t see how an accessible language should also need to be able to be used for system programming. A simpler python seems like a better option.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Scratch is an example of a simple programming language that could be taken pretty far, but it’s often dismissed as a kid’s game.

        Or even things like IFTTT, or Apple’s Automator app (formerly called just AppleScript) that gave vaguely python like tools to less/non-programmers.

        I worked on a programming tool to bring beginners from a block language like scratch up through C or Python, but we couldn’t get enough funding to finish it and google just looked at us and tried to poorly rip it off (made raising funding to compete with them even harder).