Following up on my reflexion about what could software development look like a few years or decades from now, there is this big problem that has been bugging me for years now and that I have never found the time to really tackle: expressivity. In the same way as files appear to me as the biggest obstacle to collaboration, I think the main barrier in the way of expressivity is TEXT.
It’s hard to admit, but we’re still building software like cavemen. We don’t have spoken language, just a bunch of noises, we don’t conceptualize much but we do communicate with a few gestures and more importantly some colored drawings on cave walls. The way I see it, we are not much more advanced than that, but it’s normal, software is still relatively young as a discipline and although it has already changed our lives, we have to imagine that it’s just the beginning. And the good news is that we are headed in the right direction.
We started off with most elementary way of storing information and communicating with a machine: zeros and ones. Binary. It was too elementary, more like noises coming out of our mouths, so we started to group bits in octets corresponding to hardware instructions and characters. In fact, we added gestures to noises. Then we grouped instructions into statements and procedures, and we designed a way to translate those into the most elementary form of language that machines could understand. We started drawing on walls. But as procedures multiplied like crazy, we needed to conceptualize some more, talking about classes, objects, methods, properties, and so on. Spoken language was born. And with higher level concepts like services, components and multiple programming languages, we added written language. OK, the analogy is not that good, but you get my point: I’m convinced we’re still very early in the overall evolution of communication with machines, and although this evolution is somewhat slow and creates a lot of inertia, I believe that if we want computers to really expand our capabilities (note that I didn’t say “replace us”), we need to go further in abstraction levels.
So what’s next? Binary, assembly, procedural, object-oriented (yes, and functional, if you want), then what? Model-driven? I’ve tried that, it’s just replacing the constraints of text with the constraints of visual representations. It sure makes it easier to conceptualize, but at some point we’re still translating those visual models into text code, which we have to compile. The roundtrip is just too long. What about domain-specific languages? Well, I’m more into that right now. It looks like communicating is naturally based on languages, collections of concepts that relate with one another to describe what a software is and what it does. So focusing on making it easier to define new languages definitely goes in the right direction. That’s why it’s so linked with meta-programming: instead of statically defining layers upon layers of fixed concepts to describe systems with even higher level abstractions, let’s define the root concepts we will use to describe languages that will allow us to describe our systems. That’s why I’m so interested in Groovy at the moment for internal DSLs, although I prefer the more elegant idea of external DSLs and language workbenches, like Jetbrains MPS does.
All of this evolution makes me think of a video I saw recently, that tried to make String theory more accessible:
Let’s say binary is our dimension 0. Assembly is dimension 1: a line. Procedural programming is dimension 2: a plane. Object-Oriented Programming is then 3rd dimension: a volume. And it’s very hard for us to leave it, as it is our most natural way of seeing things. But that’s where I find this explanation of String theory particulary interesting (although not rigorous as some math geek friends of mine pointed out): there starts a cycle. Dimension 4 is a line again, formed by 2 different Object-Oriented Languages, like Java and C++ for example. Still there? Good! That’s where the fun starts: dimension 5 is a plane composed by all the parallel universes that are created by our own choices. Functional programming and OOP can be considered as forming such a plan. Now what if we could design a way to go directly from one of those paradigms to another one, to fold the plane in the 6th dimension: please welcome language-oriented (or meta-) programming! See the cycle? Now most of us are stuck in the 3rd dimension, and some of us are already experiencing the 6th dimension.
So there we are. Seventh dimension is the line joining the set of all possible timelines starting from our software big bang, which is the binary transistor, to another set of possible timelines, starting from another big bang. Quantum computing can be another option, but it’s a hardware one. What about software? Isn’t virtualization a way to forget about the physical hardware? And there we go 8th dimension: going from binary transistors to quantum computing is one line in the seventh dimension. Choosing to go to virtualization instead creates an branching line in the 8th dimension. Which means that if we want to create our ninth dimension, we need to fold the eighth in order to jump from quantum to virtual computing. And that’s where I locate what I call Culture-Oriented Programming. The third stage of the third 3-stage cycle. The final frontier? The next step? Hooooo… my head hurts.
But wait a second, I only talked about computing here. A virtual reality. What if dimension 10 was the line uniting computing with the real world in the purest possible way. Direct communication between human beings and computers. Who said “scary”?
PS: I didn’t intend this post to be so “theoretical”. I only thought with my keyboard and let my imagination go. But I’d love to know what you think about that crazy analogy? Do you think we are limited to 11 dimensions like in string theory?
PPS: That might be my geekiest post EVER!
One response to “Text, Expressivity and Culture-Oriented Programming”
Wow … it’s been some time since my courses on infinite dimension Eucledian spaces but I really do think I’ve hurt my head while reading this. (: I lost you somewhere after the 6th dimension but I do appreciate the theoretical approach to this topic.
Have you given it any more thought in the meanwhile?