this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
653 points (98.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

19817 readers
137 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
653
AI in reality (slrpnk.net)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aqarius 98 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People thought COBOL would let managers write code.

[–] Gutek8134 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Aqarius 51 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's by design very verbose and "English"-like, like instead of x=y*z it would go "MULTIPLY y BY z GIVING x", the idea was that it would read almost like natural language, so that non-tech staff could understand it.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Except that it's not the syntax that makes programming hard, it's the thought process, right?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes. COBOL can be excused because it was the first time anyone was going down that path. Everything that comes later, less so.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Yes. COBOL can be excused because it was the first time anyone was going down that path.

Yeah. And a lot of non-programmers became programmers thanks to Cobol.

I think we're seeing this effect with AI code copilots, as well. It can't replace a programmer, but it can elevate a potential programmer to proficient (in at least some tasks) faster than was possible before.

I know it theoretically means I earn less than I might have, but for my whole career there's been so much more to be done than there are of us to do it, anyway.

Everything that comes later, less so.

Yeah. They really need to get off my lawn with this nonsense. We've seen this enough times to know that it'll be great, but still won't solve all our problems.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

i mean syntax is part of it, but it can only help you so much. like no matter how you talk about mathematics, you have to somehow understand what multiplication is, but it certainly does help to write "5x3" rather than "5+5+5"

[–] reinei 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

But/and also also, just because you might know what a multiplication is you still might not know how to use that to make audio louder! (You might say "well just add to the loudness!" or if you actually know it's not that easy you might say "just multiply it by 2!", but the computer doesn't simply take "audio" it takes some form of bytes in an array encoding said audio, let's say PCM to make it easier, and you still need to know how to loop over that and multiply every value by 2 to double the physical volume.)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

oh but don't forget clipping and the fact that you now increased audio variance means the 10¢ tinny speakers at checkout cant power it, so now you have to work around perceptive loudness and normalize to speech frequencies and when you get to the shop to install new firmware you see a granny wearing glasses asking "what does the self checkout menu say?" and now you have a new problem.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Man alive, don't get the managers working with audio. "Doubling the stream" might work if you're using a signed audio format rather than an unsigned one, and the format is in the same endianness as the host computer uses. Neither of which are guaranteed when working with audio.

But of course, the ear perceives loudness in a logarithmic way (the decibel scale), so for it to be perceived as "twice as loud", it generally needs an exponential increase. Very high and low frequencies need more, since we're less sensitive to them and don't perceive increases so well.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

Except that it's not the syntax that makes programming hard, it's the thought process, right?

Exactly!

And, of course, AI doesn't help with the thought process at all, but did made the syntax much simpler to deal with, once again.

So - once again - people who don't understand what you just pointed out, now believe we don't need programmers anymore. Just like the last several times that we "didn't need programmers anymore", for basically the same reason.

I understand that we rinse and repeat the same nonsense for networking, systems administrator, etc, every few years. Some people genuinely believe that the computers are someday going to magically start understanding themselves for us.