[asdff]

Why not, though? Programming itself is a layer of abstraction. Why did we invent this bespoke complicated and arbitrary syntax that can be explained succinctly with a comment in your native language, rather than just develop the computer to interpret commands in common native language syntax directly? I shouldn't have to remember that ls is list directory contents. I should be able to type all sorts of permutations of 'show me what stuff is here' in my language and not some bullshit syntax that someone came up with on a whim 50 years ago, if the computer was truly developed to be a tool for everyone.

I'm not confident it's going to change for the better and democratize what computers can truly do, simulate and model. People who've already paid the cost of memorizing all the ins and outs of complicated computer syntax don't really care how much of a hill they've had to climb anymore now that they've learned enough to be familiar. Now you have this memorization lock in, where you've spent years and perhaps thousands with university learning some dense programming language and start building your tooling around what you've learned, and in the process you force the next generation to have to learn that syntax if you are to hire them, and so on and so forth. That's why we've been typing ls since the 80s and we will still be typing ls in 50 years. I'm sure the authors of ls would find that horrifying.

[tsimionescu]

This is all complaining about the insignificant problems of programming. Syntax is something you get over after you're out of school. A good Java programmer will also be a good Common Lisp or C or APL programmer within months of first seeing that language.

The complexity of programming lies in coming up with abstract models for real-life problems, and in encoding those models in sufficient details for a machine to execute them. It also lies in knowing the details of how the machine functions to be able to achieve performance or other goals (e.g. avoid parallelism pitfalls). Until we have AGI, none of these problems are even in principle solvable with better tools to the point that someone who hasn't invested in learning how to program for a few years will be able to do anything that isn't trivial. The best possible visual PL can't change this one iota.

What could be doable is creating more DSLs for laypeople to learn, rather than trying to do very complex things through a GUI. One of the few areas where there has been tremendous success in having non-programmers actually do some programming is in stuff like Excel. That is a very purpose-built system, with clear feedback on the steps of computation, very limitted in what you can actually program, but comprehensive enough for its intended domain, and is probably by far the most utilized programming environment, dwarfing something like vim by an order of magnitude.

[asdff]

>This is all complaining about the insignificant problems of programming

To me, syntax is a huge problem. Sure, you learn it in school. Computer Science School. Not everyone is a computer scientist. Some people are political scientists, environmental scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc., all of whom have their own difficult four years of schooling, and simply don't have the time to learn this complicated syntax without trading something else off. You don't think its a big deal since you've already paid that price of time. Well, not everyone can afford to pay that time, and it's a damn shame that in order to make full use of all a computer can do, you need to spend this time learning this sometimes remarkably clunky syntax before you can even begin to work on your real life problem. Imagine how much more technological and societal progress we would make if everyone could make computational models about their question at hand without having to spend years and thousands of dollars working with unrelated example data in undergrad, sometimes even using instructional languages that have no use outside of school. To me, that's the world that The Jetson's live in.

[kazinator]

> just develop the computer to interpret commands in common native language syntax directly?

We have that: e.g. Google Assistant. (If you don't mind needing an internet connection, and sending your voice to the cloud.)

> I shouldn't have to remember that ls is list directory contents.

Nobody's had to do that in 35+ years, except those of us who prefer that sort of thing. The rest click on some folder icon or something.

[asdff]

Google Assistant et al do not do that. I can't ask Siri to show the contents of my directory. I can't ask Siri to run anything on the command line at all. These voice assistants just do a number of predefined functions, they don't offer 1:1 control of your device the same as traditional inputs. Yeah, that's true that most people use a GUI, but the point still stands. You have to remember these distinct workflows to do something readily explained in person. An old person might have to take a computer class because they want to send an email, whereas an intutively designed system would take that persons input, "email jake" and do all the behind the scenes stuff we do ourselves to compose emails for us. An ideal computer is a secretary that can do everything you can think of since you are both versed in the native language. Siri is not a perfect secretary, Siri is like an elevator man only able to press one of the couple dozen buttons on the wall for you.

[zepto]

True - but it seems like some middle ground might be possible - where the power of the shell is all available, but with the cognitive support that the GUI provides also present.

[tcoff91]

Even when telling an actual human being to do something there are misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The idea that it's feasible with our current technology to just design programming such that we can just write natural language and the computer will do what we envisioned is absurd. Natural language is very imprecise and squishy and not at all suited to programming. Attempts to make code look more like natural language such as AppleScript and COBOL suck.

[jcelerier]

> I shouldn't have to remember that ls is list directory contents

I mean, surely you use your own abbreviations when writing, no ? How would you abbreviate "list directory contents" ?

For instance I have `alias l=ls -lha` - and if it was instead list-directory-contents I would have `alias l=list-directory-content -lha`

e.g. just look how hard powershell sucks with those long verbose command names, it's unuseable

[dave_sullivan]

Because human language is not specific enough. Code isn't complicated, it's unambiguous. You can always alias ls but that doesnt change the model much does it?

[saasdev]

Isn't that essentially Microsoft and Apple’s business model and how they got to where they are today?