[hansmayer]

:) Here is a crazy thought - what if we had some kind of a narrowed down, specific subset of normal language which would translate into specific computer-level instructions. So for example, instead of telling computer to read something from a file and transform it in a certain way, you actually had a specific instruction to open a file, which worked the same each time you used it and guaranteed to fail if you used it the wrong way? Wow, the possibilities are endless :)

[wiseowise]

Don’t be ridiculous, that would be extremely hard. Oppressive even, because it’s unattainable to an average person. And it is, otherwise there would be millions of programmers in the world. Was it unattainable or “we have to pay these suckers money, and they have rights and lives outside of work”? Bah! Just make sure to renew your subscription, agent will do the thinking and you bring the money.

[hansmayer]

But Paul Graham says that the guy from Replit whom he funded told him the source code is "object code" now, so we don't need to look at it all ? It must be utter wisdom since PG managed to get wealthy by selling some website during dotcom-mania so he must have insights we are missing?

[oblio]

> PG managed to get wealthy by selling some website during dotcom-mania

I don't remember how much he made selling the "quickly-killed startup bought by now failed internet giant".

But I'm fairly sure how much money he made building something other people used is peanuts compared to what he made investing early in companies where others built things, instead of him.

[wiseowise]

Heathen. And you dare to say this on a website created by the guy?