Hi Stefano Franchi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Franchi [mailto:franchi at csli.Stanford.EDU]
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 1998 2:45 PM
 . . .
> This is true only if we hold fast to the analogy programming/~/writing. In
> fact what society seems to have decided is that the analogy is false, that
> computers are just a very sophisticated tool substantially analogous to
> cars, whose design and production should be left to the specialists, and
> that programming is as genral purpose as mechanical drafting.
>
> How do I hope to be proved wrong!

I started programming as a teenager in the late 70s using PDP11s (RSTS/E).
I do not remember adults having to do much to get us started.  They just
pointed us at the machine and we went on to learn everything we could. We
created our own society of programmers.  The computer seemed alive in a way,
and our small society of programmers was even livelier.  We were usually
working on several interesting projects.  The excitement was not just a
product of the technology but as much a result of being part of a group of
intellectually engaged teens who were excited and optimistic about the
future.  I wish more people could have that experience.

In a way you are right.  The trend seems to be going against everyday
programming.  When I started math and science were what you did with
computers.  That has changed and continues to change.  Increasingly
computers are about communications, marketing, writing, art, and a little
bit of accounting.  No need for programming.

Perhaps things will go the way Donald Norman predicts and computers as such
will become less visible and more part of the background infrastructure.
Then no one will bother programming because, well, there will be lots of
small information appliances around.  No one will have a computer to
program.  (And perhaps that also marks the difference between the Smalltalk
and Java design philosophies.)

I wouldn't bet on it.  As much as I am very enthusiastic about most of
Norman's ideas I think he does not seem to recognize the degree to which
many people conceptualize their computers as an extension of their physical
and social space.  We have partially moved our households on to our hard
drives and our networks.  Our study room doors open out on to the World Wide
Web.  We use virtual information appliances in this conceptual space as much
as we use physical appliances in physical space.  The computer as space
depends on fluidity and flexibility that can only exist if our computers
continue to be general purpose programmable machines.

Ultimately the only way to take control of one's information space is by
programming.  (It may be called authoring, scripting, spreadsheet formulas
and macros, dynamic web page design, simulation modeling, writing applets,
math package notebooks, setting up shortcuts, or even organizing your
bookmarks.)  If there are good tools that can take someone from simple
scripting all the way to exploring engaging ideas, some people will make
that journey.  Over time there will be a more interesting body of literature
in the form of programs, and others will want to explore that literature.


Jonathan


PS.  My comments about Donald Norman's ideas come from reading only about
half of his recent "The Invisible Computer."  When I have more time I really
should finish it.