The problem with opensource

The largest roadblock preventing OSS from becoming ubiquitous is not in the philosophy (not at all, fantastic philosophy) but rather in the medium. Modern, decent programming languages are simply too complex for Joe Average, reducing the contribution base for OSS down to a minority of proficient coders and crippling one of opensource's main selling points. For OSS to achieve its ideal, we need to develop simpler, more intuitive, more accessible, yet equally powerful forms of coding, such that any reasonable person using a piece of software is not limited in their ability to patch or modify it in any significant way. This is, obviously, not possible with the current state of computer science. We must overthrow tradition and embrace the future. WE MUST RISE UP AND FIGHT FOR OUR IDEAL. VIVA LA REVOLUCION 4CHAN.

simpler, more intuitive, more accessible, yet equally powerful forms of coding
elaborate plz.

I was gonna leave that one up to you guys.

But that's the problem. Almost any language that simplifies things does it by lumping complex, detailed operations together into simpler commands. The advantage is that you're not fiddling around in the minutiae of smaller operations and require less understanding of what goes on under the hood for these larger operations to occur. The disadvantage is that you lose the inherent flexibility of performing an operation with lots of very simple commands. Think of it as the difference between constructing a building out of prefabricated modules or brick-by-brick. The prefab approach is quick and easy, but constricts you to what modules are available from the manufacturer. The brick-by-brick approach means you're unconstrained and can design the building exactly as you want it, but it requires specialized skills to complete its construction. I know that's a rather blunt and oversimplified example, but that's the concept here.

I'll be getting involved in the OS Community within the next few months, so I'll take that to heart.

Python.

Python sucks

FIXED

>>7
YOU Suck.
Fixed.

>>1
You mean simpler programming languages like Cobol? I'm too young to know what was the hype back then but I know what happens now because of this piece of sh**!

No, the real problem is TOO MUCH PEOPLE trying to get involved in programming when they know absolutely nothing about calculus or algorithms. I find that languages like Python or Ruby are simple enough for everyone. I'm not preaching assembly language, but if you don't know the basics, you'll go nowhere.

>>9
LOL?!
CALCULUS IN PROGRAMMING?!
LOL!?

>>9

You, sir, are a dipshit.

>>1

I wouldn't mind making it easier for Joe Average to customize his software but I don't want his contributions back in the codebase. The open source programmers we already can be bad enough.

>>11

People NEED to be good at maths to program well.

>>10 and >>11
Thanks morons for confirming my point with your short sentences. Have you really written programs in your life? I do and I need a lot of different stuff ranging from algebra and algorithms to chemistry on a daily basis.

If you write in Cobol, it's your problem but most "real life" situations need scripting languages (for easyness) with low-level libs written in C (and optimized asm) and some //ism (like MPI). That's all I use but I know some guys who needs even more tools and knowledge than me.

And FYI I don't give a fuck about what 6pack-joe wants on his "AOL-computar to surf the intarweb."

In the Good Old Days, I could go:

10 HGR2
20 FOR I = 1 TO 191: HPLOT 0,0 to I,I: NEXT

With the exception of some 'nice' BASIC interpreters you can find today (METAL on Macs, for example) there's no way an 'average' (i.e: someone who isn't going to devote 80% of their brain tissue to a single task for 5+ years) person can code.

It'd be nice to see a 'toy' OS using a BASIC-like system-programming language.. Sure, it would be incredibly aw3sum and complicated.. but that's the whole point.

>>15
*it wouldn't be incredibly aw3sum ...
(typo)

>>14
| Have you really written programs in your life?
Of course I have, don't patronise. I hack code on a regular basis.
| If you write in Cobol, it's your problem
What? No one writes in Cobol, you brought that particular crime against technology up.

From the rest of your post I'm guessing you write specialised programs for science applications, probably involving simulation if you're going to the trouble of parallel programming. Sounds fun tbh. But my point is that most everyday programs aren't like that.

| And FYI I don't give a fuck about what 6pack-joe wants on his "AOL-computar to surf the intarweb."
And that's exactly what >>1 was complaining about. The best hackers got to be so good because they only work on hard problems that they enjoy. GUIs are boring so only mediocre programmers do them. Conclusion? We need more shitty programmers to write our GUIs so we can get on with solving interesting problems.

>>15
I'm considering reviving the good old days of the Lisp Machines by writing a kernel for the x86 that consists of a Lisp interpreter and pretty much nothing else. It probabaly wouldn't be a good idea, but I won't know until I've tried and despaired at the monster I've created :-)

What YOU'RE talking about is a Commodore or a Speccy. Cooler than an XBox and almost as large.

hay guys how do i write program

10. Print "Fuck off!";
20. Goto 10

>>17
HAHAHAH ALMOST AS LARGE AS X-BOX! LOL GOOD ONE.

>GUIs are boring so only mediocre programmers do them.

Kind of. It's more like programmers suck at art and usability so we need more artsy, intuitive people to do our interfaces. See GNOME, E17 (respectively).

>>21

Yes, however I would argue that the reason they suck at "usability" (read: GUI) is because it's not an interesting task to a hacker.

Furthermore it's not something the programmer himself would actually use - to the hacker usability = simplicity which more often than not means writing CLI tools. Note how the most popular tools for writing Unix GUIs are special purpose scripting languages such as Tk and widget libraries such as Qt, GTK which enable you to throw up a GUI in the least possible time.

Here's a thought I just had: what we need is a package that enables non-programmers to take a program and develop a GUI without having to look at any code. Something like Visual Studio only language independent. It would be necessary for the GUI developer to be able to poke the program from different directions to determine its behaviour. Perhaps the language independence could be achieved by an Emacs style extension language to enable it to work in different modes.

Hell maybe it already exists and I'm just ignorant. If not though maybe it's something I should write :)

>>22

That's certainly a valid point, though I think it may be more psychological than that alone. Most geeks and especially programmers rely heavily on logic and math amd are probably not especially artistic and creative. This leaves us with sufficient and probably more immediately efficient GUIs, but at the same time ones heavily lacking in style and appeal.

>>22
libglade perhaps

>>13
lol, maths in programming? Unless you're creating new algorithms, and in 99.99% you aren't, you need to be able to find and apply appropriate algorithm to a problem lambda, that has imho nothing to do with maths, but it's purely logic problem...

Ie, if you're coding game engine you usually have guys skilled in physics giving formulas for you and you really don't need to understand all that shit just to rewrite it to computar language. Or if you're supposed to make shortest path under circumstancies XY you just take dijkstra/A*/D*/(whatever you know is best under those conditions) and apply it. Not that you need to reinvent the wheel there either.

>>22
There are gui creators using xml as output, so you just need to load it with appropriate libraries for the language you work in. Load times will be a little slower because you need to parse all input, but it gives you the possibility to create them outside coding enviroment.

A programming language that cannot work without using the GOTO command is shit thats for sure.

I think the majority of progammers are never big fans of GUI. Its just too freaking complicated. Look at JAVA how many classes are invovled just to get a proper windows-looking GUI.

The only exception is PHP. Programming with PHP is really easy when you combine it with HTML as the GUI scripting language.

>>26
Yes but in most GUI tookkits life isn't *quite* so difficult as Java makes it out to be :)

>>25
 I don't create algorithms but I don't "apply" them either. Algorithms have to be heavily modified and adapted to your problem (well, at least for me) and that's why I need a lot of maths.

I'm really pissed off by all the trolls who don't use maths in their jobs, think maths are dead and just make fun of everyone they don't agree with. Why don't you try to broaden your vision once? I'm glad my coworkers are not that narrow-minded or I would have a hard time working and increasing my knowledge everyday!

>>28
I agree that math is jsut not used in the real-world no more as in the real business world. Yes when it comes to like desiging planes and so on math will be used but in everyday business I am pretty sure all that hard learned math and stats we took courses on are dumped in the drain.

I mean my manager comes to me asking me about how to solve this stats problem and HE is suppose to me my senior and more qualified.

By the way, it's not necessary to capitalise the names of most languages...