A "theory" on computer evolution

[Baby Astronaut]

From what I'll reasonably guess, computer languages and implementation decisions have evolved sort of ad-hoc, which if true is one reason for the difficulty level of mastering computers.

 

Another element, I'd suppose, is the loss of any paths that could've a) streamlined design, b) focused more on best practices, and/or c) increased overall efficiency. To elaborate, such a path can be any worthwhile fork in the past's road of computer developments that for a reason got abandoned/neglected/overlooked (for a less effective one?). If we add up all such instances of lost paths, those might be enough, potentially, to compound the overall level of complexity creep* in today's systems.

 

The point I'd like to discuss is this: how possible would it be for computers to be leagues easier for its designers/coders, language builders, and most everyday home or office users....if the focus were on clean code, making programmer languages intuitive even for beginner designers/coders, standards of interoperability, and elegance from the basic structure of algorithms to the computer's interaction with any other digital hardware?

 

i.e...would computer science -- and understanding the vast world of computers -- be anywhere near to so difficult then?

 

 

*Rather than complexity, I prefer to say complication. To me, the word complexity evokes an image of simple parts intertwined in a complex harmony or pattern: a rose's bouquet; good wine or notes of flavors combining in microbrewed beers; DaVinci's paintings.

 

Complicated, on the other hand, is like a clashing of messy parts: the legal system; corporate bureaucracies, technical instruction manuals; loophole filled tax codes.

[khaled]

There are two points I'd like to preserve:

 

1. New high level programming will become higher in level, simpler, and more efficient .. but, on the other

side, there will be more complex system to work with, and more complex systems will be developed at

the low-level of the computer ...

 

2. High level programming will always become more managed, simpler, with more prepared for use,

working with the say "don't re-invent the wheel" ...

[Baby Astronaut]

2. High level programming will always become more managed, simpler, with more prepared for use,

working with the say "don't re-invent the wheel" ...

I don't think (for programming) one has to re-invent the entire wheel per se, but that in a way, one does have to reconfigure the system practically from the ground up.

 

The real wheel has more of a luxury: one doesn't use a wheel to craft an evolved wheel, but one does use a program to create an evolved type of programming. Without re-invention of computer programming, we might get a butterfly effect type pile-up of consequences, where all the little inefficiencies carried over from earlier seedlings of programming might begin a growing chain of inefficiencies that at the end negatively affects performance and over-complicates everything in the system.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Baby Astronaut

[khaled]

I don't think (for programming) one has to re-invent the entire wheel per se, but that in a way, one does have to reconfigure the system practically from the ground up.

 

The real wheel has more of a luxury: one doesn't use a wheel to craft an evolved wheel, but one does use a program to create an evolved type of programming. Without re-invention of computer programming, we might get a butterfly effect type pile-up of consequences, where all the little inefficiencies carried over from earlier seedlings of programming might begin a growing chain of inefficiencies that at the end negatively affects performance and over-complicates everything in the system.

 

As a programmer, I'm okay with managed programming .. but I don't like high managed languages, ones that seem like Lego Blocks game ...