A Possible Future of Software Development

Turns out I greatly exagerated my memories (sic), he was mentionning equivalence relation using c++ concepts then went into constraint/dependant interactive input. [LINK] page 18, 38 this was hosted at googletechtalks [VIDEO] (240p)

"Ask any C++ guru and they will tell you: avoid mutation, avoid side effects, don’t use loops, avoid class hierarchies and inheritance. But you will need strict discipline and total control over your collaborators to pull that off because C++ is so permissive. "Haskell is not permissive, it won’t let you — or your coworkers — write unsafe code. Yes, initially you’ll be scratching your head trying to implement something in Haskell that you could hack in C++ in 10 minutes. If you’re lucky, and you work for Sean Parent or other exceptional programmer, he will code review your hacks and show you how not to program in C++." For those who aren't familiar with Parent, watch this talk: [VIDEO] which introduced me to Stepanov's "Elements of Programming" and the idea that I could be working with better/more reliable/provable abstractions in C++. That said... after a few weeks of shallowly digesting the material, I started thinking pretty much like Milewski says above: it's great if I can learn to write better C++, but if what I really want is to escape from its specific dangers and general common programming pitfalls, something like Haskell seems like a better bet.

If you are curious how does Abstract Algebra relate to software engineering, this book might be of your interest [LINK] The main selling point of this approach is that it can cut out a lot of code In this talk, Sean Parent, at that time working on Adobe Photoshop, estimated that the PS codebase could be reduced from 3,000,000 LOC to 30,000 LOC (=100x!!) if they followed ideas from the book [VIDEO] Another point of his is that the explosion of written code we are seeing isn't sustainable and that so much of this code is algorithms or data structures with overlapping functionalities. As the codebases grow, and these functionalities diverge even further, pulling the reigns in on the chaos becomes gradually impossible. Bjarne Stroustrup (aka the C++ OG) gave this book five stars on Amazon (in what is his one and only Amazon product review lol). [LINK]

I'll give you a couple. Note that some of these are rehashes of my earlier comments. # Elements of Programming [LINK] This book proposes how to write C++-ish code in a mathematical way that makes all your code terse. In this talk, Sean Parent, at that time working on Adobe Photoshop, estimated that the PS codebase could be reduced from 3,000,000 LOC to 30,000 LOC (=100x!!) if they followed ideas from the book [VIDEO] Another point of his is that the explosion of written code we are seeing isn't sustainable and that so much of this code is algorithms or data structures with overlapping functionalities. As the codebases grow, and these functionalities diverge even further, pulling the reigns in on the chaos becomes gradually impossible. Bjarne Stroustrup (aka the C++ OG) gave this book five stars on Amazon (in what is his one and only Amazon product review lol). This style might become dominant because it's only really possible in modern successors of C++ such as Swift or Rust, not so much in C++ itself. [LINK] # Grammar of graphics [LINK] This book changed my perception of creativity, aesthetics and mathematics and their relationships. Fundamentally, the book provides all the diverse tools to give you confidence that your graphics are mathematically sound and visually pleasing. After reading this, Tufte just doesn't cut it anymore. It's such a weird book because it talks about topics as disparate Bayesian rule, OOP, color theory, SQL, chaotic models of time (lolwut), style-she

There's this book that I've been mentioning around here called Elements of Programming [LINK] that makes exactly this claim, that we are writing too much code. It proposes how to write C++-ish (it's an extremely minimal subset of C++ proper) code in a mathematical way that makes all your code terse. In this talk, Sean Parent, at that time working on Adobe Photoshop, estimated that the PS codebase could be reduced from 3,000,000 LOC to 30,000 LOC (=100x!!) if they followed ideas from the book [VIDEO] Another point of his is that the explosion of written code we are seeing isn't sustainable and that so much of this code is algorithms or data structures with overlapping functionalities. As the codebases grow, and these functionalities diverge even further, pulling the reigns in on the chaos becomes gradually impossible. Bjarne Stroustrup (aka the C++ OG) gave this book five stars on Amazon (in what is his one and only Amazon product review lol). [LINK] This style might become dominant because it's only really possible in modern successors of C++ such as Swift or Rust that have both "direct" access to memory and type classes/traits/protocols, not so much in C++ itself (unless debugging C++ template errors is your thing).

They make code reuse possible. Watch this Sean Parent video [VIDEO] where he estimates that if Photoshop was rewritten using generics, the code size would go from 3,000,000 LOC to 30,000 LOC. You are right, during compilation, generics are specialized so you end up with code, however going all in on generics removes a lot of accidental complexity.

This book is really good, really dense but the ideas have inspired a generation. In this video, Sean Parent, at the time working at Adobe on Photoshop, estimated that if PS codebase followed ideas from this book, the codebase could be reduced from 3,000,000 LOC to 30,000 LOC. [VIDEO]