[matthewmacleod]

There is a vested interest in making developer tools as weighty and difficult (for the PITS) as possible .. why learn programming when you can just buy an app?

This is nonsense. You appear to be arguing that every computer user should be able to develop software - equivalent to arguing that every driver should be able to build a car.

You know why modern computers don't ship with development tools? Because they are no longer used exclusively by people who are computer programmers. They're mass-market devices now, and one of the requirements of that is that they need to allow users to perform tasks without learning how to develop software - an act that is totally orthogonal to actually performing those tasks.

Coupled with this, those people who are developers and require access to development tools have immediate access to them, thanks to the Internet. You can immediately download SDKs and IDEs for both Windows and MacOS, and every major Linux distribution comes bundled with a compiler. Same for Android, iPhones, etc. - it would be nothing but a waste to provide development tools when the vast majority of users do not require them, and when they are so easily available elsewhere.

I'm also completely unclear what "fuss and nonsense required to just get a window up on the screen" you think exists, given the ~10 lines of code which is required to do this on any platform.

[fit2rule]

Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them.

The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development.

>>10 lines of code to make a window

But this doesn't actually do something. Used to be, you could write a functional application with 10 lines of code -but now, because computing is being run by Fashion Directors (I agree with you on this, btw) where 'trends' are more important than actual use, we get a lot of weight added to the truss normally bearing the load of 'usefulness' to the user.

I don't consider that we've actually made a lot of progress with human computer interaction over the decades since the Canon Cat was around. In many ways, I think we've been side-tracked in the computer industry. The rise of Windows, for example, set the whole computer industry back 10 years ..

[matthewmacleod]

Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them.

Yes, it is nonsense. Development tools are easily and freely available to anybody who wants to use them.

The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development.

Developers exist because development of applications is inherently more complex than use of applications, almost by definition.

But this doesn't actually do something

It displays a window.

Used to be, you could write a functional application with 10 lines of code

You still can, and you'll be able to accomplish a lot more than you could 25 years ago.

but now, because computing is being run by Fashion Directors (I agree with you on this, btw) where 'trends' are more important than actual use, we get a lot of weight added to the truss normally bearing the load of 'usefulness' to the user.

I don't agree with you. Computers are being designed to aid users in accomplishing tasks, which is exactly what they should do. That they are not required to understand the internal workings is a good thing.

[fit2rule]

I believe that the reason its so difficult to understand the internal workings is the intention of the OS vendors - and this is not an altruistic purpose! If computers were very easy to develop for, a lot of people who have a vested interest in maintaining their control and secrecy might have to re-educate themselves. What I see happening in the industry is the same thing that happens in Class-based societies - as soon as there is an opportunity to draw a line, it is drawn - and we then have two classes of people.

Repeat, ad infinitum ..

[mikeash]

"But this doesn't actually do something. Used to be, you could write a functional application with 10 lines of code -but now, because computing is being run by Fashion Directors (I agree with you on this, btw) where 'trends' are more important than actual use, we get a lot of weight added to the truss normally bearing the load of 'usefulness' to the user."

I've been programming since the mid-80s, when I started out doing BASIC on the Commodore 64. Along the way, I touched on BASIC on the Apple II, Pascal on the Apple IIGS, Mac, and Windows, C and C++ on the Mac, Visual Basic, and various other environments. These days I mostly do Objective-C and Java on Mac, iOS, and Android, with a sprinkling of Python and other languages.

It has never been easier to write a functional application than it is today. The ratio of code to functionality for any given app is lower than it has ever been.

Take the C64 or Apple II with built-in BASIC that so many hold up as a shining example of empowering the user. Now compare it to a modern Mac, which ships with AppleScript, Python, Ruby, Perl, and bridges to let many of these languages be used to create real, fully functional GUI apps. I can build a decently functional text editor in a few dozen lines of Python on a brand new Mac, while back in the day that much code would probably not even get you inline editing, let alone spell check, saving, rich text, printing, versioning.... Furthermore, the "exact same tools" as anyone else would have, Xcode, are available free from Apple and you'll get a prompt to download and install the stuff automatically if you try to use the compiler. Massive quantities of high-quality documentation are also available for free.

The reason most computer users don't program is because they don't want to, not because it's harder than it used to be.

[fit2rule]

I've been writing code since the 70's, and this statement:

"It has never been easier to write a functional application than it is today. The ratio of code to functionality for any given app is lower than it has ever been."

.. in my personal opinion, is false. The apparency-of-ease is there, but in reality its just not true. The runway to get something running and useful is about 10x as long as it used to be ..

[mikeash]

Do you disagree with my claim about the text editor, or do you think that's just a bad example, or what?

[andrewflnr]

Saying that every driver should be able to build a car is like saying that every computer user should be able to build on operating system from scratch. What (I think) the gp and I are saying is that every driver should be able to do basic repairs and maintenance on their car, and should be able to write basic programs.