When Dartmouth College launched the Basic language 50 years ago, it enabled ordinary users to write code. Millions did. But we've gone backwards since then, and most users now seem unable or unwilling to create so much as a simple macro
  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    Today’s users have massive amounts of computer power at their disposal, thanks to sales of billions of desktop and laptop PCs, tablets and smartphones. They’re all programmable. Users should be able to do just enough programming to make them work the way they want. Is that too much to ask?

    Smartphones – and to a lesser degree, tablets – kind of are not a phenomenal programming platform. Yeah, okay, they have the compute power, but most programming environments – and certainly the ones that I’d consider the best ones – are text-based, and in 2025, text entry on a touchscreen still just isn’t as good as with a physical keyboard. I’ll believe that there is room to considerably improve on existing text-entry mechanisms, though I’m skeptical that touchscreen-based text entry is ever going to be at par with keyboard-based text entry.

    You can add a Bluetooth keyboard. And it’s not essential. But it is a real barrier. If I were going to author Android software, I do not believe that I’d do the authoring on an Android device.

    When Dartmouth College launched the Basic language 50 years ago, it enabled ordinary users to write code. Millions did. But we’ve gone backwards since then, and most users now seem unable or unwilling to create so much as a simple macro

    I don’t know about this “going backwards” stuff.

    I can believe that a higher proportion of personal computer users in 1990 could program to at least some degree than could the proportion of, say, users of Web-browser-capable devices today.

    But not everyone in 1990 had a personal computer, and I would venture to say that the group that did probably was not a representative sample of the population. I’d give decent odds that a lower proportion of the population as a whole could program in 1990 than today.

    I do think that you could make an argument that the accessibility of a programming environment somewhat-declined for a while, but I don’t know about it being monotonically.

    It was pretty common, for personal computers around 1980, to ship with some kind of BASIC programming environment. Boot up an Apple II, hit…I forget the key combination, but it’ll drop you straight into a ROM-based BASIC programming environment.

    After that generation, things got somewhat weaker for a time.

    DOS had batch files. I don’t recall whether QBasic was standard with the OS. checks it did for a period with MS-DOS, but was a subset of QuickBasic. I don’t believe that it was still included by later in the Windows era.

    The Mac did not ship with a (free) programming environment.

    I think that that was probably about the low point.

    GNU/Linux was a wild improvement over this situation.

    And widespread Internet availability also helped, as it made it easier to distribute programming environments and tools.

    Today, I think that both MacOS and Windows ship with somewhat-more sophisticated programming tools. I’m out of date on MacOS, but last I looked, it had access to the Unix stuff via brew, and probably has a set of MacOS-specific stuff out there that’s downloadable. Windows ships with Powershell, and the most-basic edition of Visual Studio can be downloaded gratis.

      • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
        01·
        10 days ago

        Hypercard was free for a while.

        Yeah, and I wrote some stuff in HyperTalk, but IIRC it turned into some sort of Hypercard-the-authoring-environment and Hypercard-the-player split, with the player being redistributable.

        kagis

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard

        At the same time HyperCard 2.0 was being developed, a separate group within Apple developed and in 1991 released HyperCard IIGS, a version of HyperCard for the Apple IIGS system. Aimed mainly at the education market, HyperCard IIGS has roughly the same feature set as the 1.x versions of Macintosh HyperCard, while adding support for the color graphics abilities of the IIGS. Although stacks (HyperCard program documents) are not binary-compatible, a translator program (another HyperCard stack) allows them to be moved from one platform to the other.

        Then, Apple decided that most of its application software packages, including HyperCard, would be the property of a wholly owned subsidiary called Claris. Many of the HyperCard developers chose to stay at Apple rather than move to Claris, causing the development team to be split. Claris attempted to create a business model where HyperCard could also generate revenues. At first the freely-distributed versions of HyperCard shipped with authoring disabled. Early versions of Claris HyperCard contain an Easter Egg: typing “magic” into the message box converts the player into a full HyperCard authoring environment.[15] When this trick became nearly universal, they wrote a new version, HyperCard Player, which Apple distributed with the Macintosh operating system, while Claris sold the full version commercially. Many users were upset that they had to pay to use software that had traditionally been supplied free and which many considered a basic part of the Mac.

        Hmm. Sounds like the interaction was more-complicated than just that.

  • drspod@lemmy.ml
    0·
    10 days 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.