Future editions of Visual Studio will target non-programmers
-
In today's Insider, there was a link to an article[^] about Orcas not shipping this year. In the last paragraph of that article, it mentioned that "Future editions of Visual Studio will target non-programmers." How does everyone feel about this? I'm not sure about what MS's intentions would be, unless they are trying to create a "codeless programming" IDE - click and drag to create applications. From my experience, programmers have a certain mindset and Visual Studio (and other IDE's) is a toolkit that has been designed by programmers for programmers. Would non-programmers be able to adapt their expectations of computer usage to the "programmers" toolkit? Or will the programmers developing VS be able to create something that would enable non-programmers to use it, without dumbing it down for the rest of us. It all makes for an interesting future in the world of dev!
ChrisB ChrisDoesDev[^]
-
Chris Buckett wrote:
How does everyone feel about this?
In fact, it makes me very sad. I think this will change the definition of what a programmer is, at least from my point of view. Soon everyone will be considered programmers and some will program in PowerPoint. :suss: I suspect that employers and other characters responsible for development will jump on this hype since it more or less promises that the development cost will be radically decreased. It will probably be a tough market for some time, but I think it will shoot itself in the foot when people realize that the competence resides in the human being and not in the tool. The whole embedded systems field probably won't be effected by this "hype", leaving opportunities for real programmers.
"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown -
It's not about non-programmers doing the programmers' jobs. It's about moving everything related to the development process into the IDE - including the parts done by non-programmers (the article names "project management, development and operations management").
OK, so the continuation of VSTS. Well, that's no big deal.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
In today's Insider, there was a link to an article[^] about Orcas not shipping this year. In the last paragraph of that article, it mentioned that "Future editions of Visual Studio will target non-programmers." How does everyone feel about this? I'm not sure about what MS's intentions would be, unless they are trying to create a "codeless programming" IDE - click and drag to create applications. From my experience, programmers have a certain mindset and Visual Studio (and other IDE's) is a toolkit that has been designed by programmers for programmers. Would non-programmers be able to adapt their expectations of computer usage to the "programmers" toolkit? Or will the programmers developing VS be able to create something that would enable non-programmers to use it, without dumbing it down for the rest of us. It all makes for an interesting future in the world of dev!
ChrisB ChrisDoesDev[^]
Think about MS Access. so what if they target 'non' developers. Developers will always have an upper hand.
-
In today's Insider, there was a link to an article[^] about Orcas not shipping this year. In the last paragraph of that article, it mentioned that "Future editions of Visual Studio will target non-programmers." How does everyone feel about this? I'm not sure about what MS's intentions would be, unless they are trying to create a "codeless programming" IDE - click and drag to create applications. From my experience, programmers have a certain mindset and Visual Studio (and other IDE's) is a toolkit that has been designed by programmers for programmers. Would non-programmers be able to adapt their expectations of computer usage to the "programmers" toolkit? Or will the programmers developing VS be able to create something that would enable non-programmers to use it, without dumbing it down for the rest of us. It all makes for an interesting future in the world of dev!
ChrisB ChrisDoesDev[^]
Chris Buckett wrote:
How does everyone feel about this?
It's inevitable. For example, with Interacx, I've created two demos so far (screenshots, a punch clock[^] and contact manager[^] application). These were created without any programming as we think of it. The apps are n-tier, capable of automatically synchronizing among clients, etc. They're created using a schema designer, form designer, and report designer. The logic is expressed as workflows, not as actual "code", again as we normally think of programming. The entire Interacx suite was developed by myself over a period of a year spending certainly less than 40 hours a week on it. Documentation is non-existant, there's lots of missing features and I'm discovering certain "gotchas" that I'm still solving. Now imagine what Microsoft can do, leveraging WPF, Entity Framework, WF, WCF, and things like Linq. I absolutely see that non-programmers will be able to create professional business applications that work in WinForm, Web, and Mobile platforms. I'm actually more amazed this hasn't happened yet! What programmers will be doing is coding up the special cases that app frameworks like Interacx can't handle natively--the custom client and server side logic that is application specific that cannot be expressed by the built in or third party workflows. It's neither good nor bad. It's what's going to happen. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Chris Buckett wrote:
How does everyone feel about this?
It's inevitable. For example, with Interacx, I've created two demos so far (screenshots, a punch clock[^] and contact manager[^] application). These were created without any programming as we think of it. The apps are n-tier, capable of automatically synchronizing among clients, etc. They're created using a schema designer, form designer, and report designer. The logic is expressed as workflows, not as actual "code", again as we normally think of programming. The entire Interacx suite was developed by myself over a period of a year spending certainly less than 40 hours a week on it. Documentation is non-existant, there's lots of missing features and I'm discovering certain "gotchas" that I'm still solving. Now imagine what Microsoft can do, leveraging WPF, Entity Framework, WF, WCF, and things like Linq. I absolutely see that non-programmers will be able to create professional business applications that work in WinForm, Web, and Mobile platforms. I'm actually more amazed this hasn't happened yet! What programmers will be doing is coding up the special cases that app frameworks like Interacx can't handle natively--the custom client and server side logic that is application specific that cannot be expressed by the built in or third party workflows. It's neither good nor bad. It's what's going to happen. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithAdvertising your product Mr Clifton?:-D Seriously though, you are right. This is the logical extension to utilities like code generators and architectures like SOA. Abstraction frameworks are now easier to create than ever before, and it makes sense that applications will be built using components that encapsulate "best" practices.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Think about MS Access. so what if they target 'non' developers. Developers will always have an upper hand.
Paul Brower wrote:
Think about MS Access. so what if they target 'non' developers. Developers will always have an upper hand
True - but developers will end up having to sort out the mess that these systems create.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Paul Brower wrote:
Think about MS Access. so what if they target 'non' developers. Developers will always have an upper hand
True - but developers will end up having to sort out the mess that these systems create.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
I got some good projects about 10 years back from companies that wanted to 'fix' home-grown ms access systems. The problem for companies that allow non developers to 'develop', is that sooner or later the system needs to be fixed or enhanced ... something that is difficult to do if proven development methodologies have not been used. ... not to mention ... Mr. Gates won't abandon us developers ... he IS one of us:)
-
Chris Buckett wrote:
How does everyone feel about this?
It's inevitable. For example, with Interacx, I've created two demos so far (screenshots, a punch clock[^] and contact manager[^] application). These were created without any programming as we think of it. The apps are n-tier, capable of automatically synchronizing among clients, etc. They're created using a schema designer, form designer, and report designer. The logic is expressed as workflows, not as actual "code", again as we normally think of programming. The entire Interacx suite was developed by myself over a period of a year spending certainly less than 40 hours a week on it. Documentation is non-existant, there's lots of missing features and I'm discovering certain "gotchas" that I'm still solving. Now imagine what Microsoft can do, leveraging WPF, Entity Framework, WF, WCF, and things like Linq. I absolutely see that non-programmers will be able to create professional business applications that work in WinForm, Web, and Mobile platforms. I'm actually more amazed this hasn't happened yet! What programmers will be doing is coding up the special cases that app frameworks like Interacx can't handle natively--the custom client and server side logic that is application specific that cannot be expressed by the built in or third party workflows. It's neither good nor bad. It's what's going to happen. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smithhey Marc ... non related message question ... I checked out your interacx website ... very cool stuff by the way. I curious what product you use for creating your object diagrams. I use Enterprise Architect (not to be confused with Microsoft .Net Enterprise Architect), but I really like the colors and simplicity your diagraming tool has. If you are willing to share that please let me know. Paul Brower
-
Advertising your product Mr Clifton?:-D Seriously though, you are right. This is the logical extension to utilities like code generators and architectures like SOA. Abstraction frameworks are now easier to create than ever before, and it makes sense that applications will be built using components that encapsulate "best" practices.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O`Hanlon wrote:
Advertising your product Mr Clifton?
I was trying not to. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
hey Marc ... non related message question ... I checked out your interacx website ... very cool stuff by the way. I curious what product you use for creating your object diagrams. I use Enterprise Architect (not to be confused with Microsoft .Net Enterprise Architect), but I really like the colors and simplicity your diagraming tool has. If you are willing to share that please let me know. Paul Brower
Paul Brower wrote:
I curious what product you use for creating your object diagrams.
I use Visio mostly, but for pure UML modelling, I've found that EA is the best one out there, and I use it as well. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
I thought they already created VB for this. We all know how well that worked out :doh: :-D
V. I found a living worth working for, but haven't found work worth living for.
V. wrote:
We all know how well that worked out
Yeah. VB won. :)
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
In today's Insider, there was a link to an article[^] about Orcas not shipping this year. In the last paragraph of that article, it mentioned that "Future editions of Visual Studio will target non-programmers." How does everyone feel about this? I'm not sure about what MS's intentions would be, unless they are trying to create a "codeless programming" IDE - click and drag to create applications. From my experience, programmers have a certain mindset and Visual Studio (and other IDE's) is a toolkit that has been designed by programmers for programmers. Would non-programmers be able to adapt their expectations of computer usage to the "programmers" toolkit? Or will the programmers developing VS be able to create something that would enable non-programmers to use it, without dumbing it down for the rest of us. It all makes for an interesting future in the world of dev!
ChrisB ChrisDoesDev[^]
People have been trying to do this for decades and haven't been able to overcome the fact that creating software is a complex matter requiring a degree of intelligence. When you create a system designed to be so easy to work with that even fools can use it, you can be assured that you will therefore have fools working for you. Is that really what you want?
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
-
V. wrote:
We all know how well that worked out
Yeah. VB won. :)
Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalStrategyConsulting.com
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Best joke ever !! ;P
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
Will they also make a version for non-supercomputers? ie,one that works fast?
:badger:
Anton Afanasyev wrote:
Will they also make a version for non-supercomputers?
Yes, when my computers are no longer considered above normal. ;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
In today's Insider, there was a link to an article[^] about Orcas not shipping this year. In the last paragraph of that article, it mentioned that "Future editions of Visual Studio will target non-programmers." How does everyone feel about this? I'm not sure about what MS's intentions would be, unless they are trying to create a "codeless programming" IDE - click and drag to create applications. From my experience, programmers have a certain mindset and Visual Studio (and other IDE's) is a toolkit that has been designed by programmers for programmers. Would non-programmers be able to adapt their expectations of computer usage to the "programmers" toolkit? Or will the programmers developing VS be able to create something that would enable non-programmers to use it, without dumbing it down for the rest of us. It all makes for an interesting future in the world of dev!
ChrisB ChrisDoesDev[^]
I thought they called that Access?? I would not hold my breath, if they could have created a "codeless programming" they would have long ago. Access never turned out they way they thought it would. ;)
Steven S. Ashley
