Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages

I hate computer languages because they force me to learn a bunch of shit that are completely irrelevant to what I want to use them for. When I design an application, I just want to build it. I don’t want to have to use a complex language to describe my intentions to a compiler. Here is what I want to do: I want to look into my bag of components, pick out the ones that I need and snap them together, and that’s it! That’s all I want to do.

I don’t want to know about how to implement loops, tree structures, search algorithms and all that other jazz. If I want my program to save an audio recording to a file, I don’t want to learn about frequency ranges, formats, fidelity, file library interface, audio library interface and so forth. This stuff really gets in the way. I just want to look into my bag of tricks, find what I need and drag them out. Sometimes, when I meditate about modern computer software development tools, I get so frustrated that I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs: That is all I want to do!

To me, one of the main reasons that the linguistic approach to programming totally sucks is that it is entirely descriptive by definition. This is a major drawback because it immediately forces you into a straightjacket. Unless you are ready to describe things in the prescribed, controlled format, you are not allowed to program a computer, sorry. The problem with this is that, we humans are tinkerers by nature. We like to play with toys. We enjoy trying various combinations of things to see how they fit together. We like the element of discovery that comes from not knowing exactly how things will behave if they are joined together or taken apart. We like to say things like, “oh”, “aah”, or “that’s cool” when we half-intentionally fumble our way into a surprising design that does exactly what we want it to do and more. Computer languages get in the way of this sort of pleasure because they were created by geeks for geeks. Geeks love to spoil your fun with a bunch of boring crap. For crying out loud, I don’t want to be a geek, even if I am one by necessity. I want to be happy. I want to do cool stuff. I want to build cool things. And, goddamnit, that’s all I want to do!

http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-i-hate-all-computer-programming.html

Used to love coding when it was just the code I had to focus on. Then came windows and brought with it the creature called event driven programming. Now, I had to worry about every button click and butt itch the user has. Then came the glorious days of software industrialization and stacks. It becomes more and more obscure with the only focus seeming to be the enterprise. I believe a good percent (99%?) will be met with a bunch of standard components. Its not the code itself but how it is put together. I used to have the pride that I knew most of a language. But now its impossible with the amount of toolkits and libraries (standard and otherwise).
I actually agree with this comment, however.

LISP

0/11

hahahahahaha.
FrozenVoid quality.
i can't believe people who are this stupid actually exist. amazing

tl;dr

0/10

>>3,5
what are we, on /g/?
seriously.
1. THIS IS NOT /g/, WE DO NOT RATE PEOPLE OUT OF 10 HERE. fucking spammer newfags.
2. OP is not a troll, did you even read the post? he's reposting it from some idiot's blog.
3. On the textboards we have attention spans longer than 10 seconds, you should really work on getting that fixed, you imageboard scum.

>>6
back to /g/, please

>>6
0/12

>>8
16/2

When I design an application, I just want to build it. I don’t want to have to use a complex language to describe my intentions to a compiler. Here is what I want to do: I want to look into my bag of components, pick out the ones that I need and snap them together, and that’s it! That’s all I want to do.
Every language ever that's been anything like this has been complete and utter shit.

That guy is obviously not cut out for programming, as he hates its very essence.

>>1
You sound like you think sh is the perfect programming language.

I find this amusing for some reason.

>>10
It sounds like he is cut out for INSTANT.EXE

>>9
12/10

// Overly verbose rating, TODO: Implement in Java, add singleton factories, etc.
#include <iostream>

namespace Utilities {
    double getRating(const int points) { return static_cast<double>(points) / 7; }
}

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    std::cout << ">>13" << std::endl;
    std::cout << getRating(22);
    return 1;
}

>>14
It seems I forgot my 7.0f constant. Whoops.

>>15
You also forgot to specify the namespace for getRating. And why is main() returning 1?

OP WANTS VISUAL BASIC
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

>>1
00000001 / 00001010

This "rebelscience" fag must be like Frozen-Void's age.

I hate computer languages because they force me to learn a bunch of shit that are completely irrelevant to what I want to use them for.
What are these irrelevant things you're forced to learn? What do you want to use them for?

When I design an application, I just want to build it.
"Designing" and "building" is two different stages on a certain style of programming. At exploratory programming, for instance, you do both at the same time while embracing new problems.

I don’t want to have to use a complex language to describe my intentions to a compiler.
A language is for communication. Human languages assist human-on-human communication. Programming languages assist human-on-machine communication. So, you don't like programming by definition. (by the way, what qualifies a 'complex' language, in contrast to a simple one?)

I want to look into my bag of components, pick out the ones that I need and snap them together, and that’s it! That’s all I want to do.
That's how programming works. Only that components don't fit together automatically; the glue has to be put manually.

I don’t want to know about how to implement loops, tree structures, search algorithms and all that other jazz.
You don't implement loops. Nonsense. As for structures and algorithms, you don't have to implement them, they might already be available in the language or in a library.

If I want my program to save an audio recording to a file, I don’t want to learn about frequency ranges, formats, fidelity, file library interface, audio library interface and so forth.
How did you obtain the audio recording in the first place, without knowing about these things? To continue, again, you don't have to learn anything. You can save it raw, and then use something to convert it.

This stuff really gets in the way.
I'd say your ignorance gets in the way: clearly, if you knew those things, you'd be able to do what you want.

Sometimes, when I meditate about modern computer software development tools,
Which tools are you referring to? What are the results of your meditation?

To me, one of the main reasons that the linguistic approach to programming totally sucks is that it is entirely descriptive by definition.
What is the linguistic approach to programming? You change the topic for no reason.

Unless you are ready to describe things in the prescribed, controlled format, you are not allowed to program a computer, sorry.
In mathematics, if you're not ready to describe things in the 'prescribed format' (ie axioms), you can't use them. Once you get past the axioms, you can do whatever you want and set up your own definitions based on them, and soon, axioms will be lost under the abstraction layers. Same for programming. I have lisp in mind. So, it can't be done any other way; you're whining about the natural.

The problem with this is that, we humans are tinkerers by nature.
Irrelevant nonsense.

We like to play with toys. We enjoy trying various combinations of things to see how they fit together. We like the element of discovery that comes from not knowing exactly how things will behave if they are joined together or taken apart. We like to say things like, “oh”, “aah”, or “that’s cool” when we half-intentionally fumble our way into a surprising design that does exactly what we want it to do and more.
Don't speak on behalf of everyone when you're clearly talking about what YOU like. I don't care about toys or that shit. I'm fine doing what I do without any of that crap you mentioned.

For crying out loud, I don’t want to be a geek, even if I am one by necessity.
Shut the fuck up you piece of shit. Whoever describes himself as a geek is clearly a fucking idiot who doesn't quite understand computers, has failed in life, and desperately needs of a group of people to fit in -- namely, geeks. Geeks have nothing to do with computers. Geeks aren't good with them; geeks aren't respected, geeks are nothing. Geeks are like Emos, or Goths. GET IT?

I want to build cool things.
PAY THE PRICE.

>>2-
ITT: Nobody looked at the fucking link in the OP's post and realized that this is from some retard's blog, not the OP's thoughts

>>21
What is the difference?

>>22
The difference between what?  What a stupid fucking question.

I was pointing out the fact that morons are responding to OP as if the OP wrote all of that shit.  It would like 0.1 seconds and half  a Java programmer's brain to look at >>1 and see the link in the middle of his post.

>>23
What is the difference between replying to the OP or to someone elses thoughts? Since, you know, this board is anonymous and all.

>>24
9/11

>>1
Translation: I want geeks to do all the work for me so I can have cool stuff.

I would love to set OP loose in a well-equipped chemistry lab.

Clearly that blogger never learned a lisp.

>>26

Heh.

>>29
Heheh.

The reason you need to explain everything is because computers don't run code languages.  That is the first thing I ever learned about programming.  So, you want to use a low powered language in outdated DOS?

>>31
No he wants to use INSTANT.EXE

reminds me of my Step7 classes, maybe someday programming will degenerate like ever other thing about computers into a visual point and click style which will make you all very sad since your xterm will never see your cpu cache anymore.

He should feel lucky, try to tinker with your CPU or your TV sometime and you will see how bad the electronics guys have it.

No silver bullet.