So what does empowerment mean.
++ For me it is means owning your tools. + For everyone to really be able to unfold their ideas and potential. + Not to be stuck, rather to be able to change anything one wishes. + We usually own the code we write, and we have seen amazing progress in opening up new ideas. +
++ So it is hard to even think of ruby holding us back, and it isn't off course, only current implementations of it are. +
++ So concretely what does this mean: Well i don't know do i! That's the whole point, that anyone can improve it beyond + the original creators horizon. +
++ But to mention a few things that have crossed my mind (and that i will most certainly not implement) +
-
+
- Efficient vector extensions that use cpu/gpu instructions not supported in the core +
- Efficient grphics extensions +
- New language features, ie real dsl's that extand the parser on the fly +
- Off course there is always new cpu's and os's +
- Better implementation of core datastructures. Did i hear digital trees being mentioned? +
- Better gc's, better memory management. +
- Superoptimization! (heard of that one?) +
+ And the fun thing is off course that all the above can be created as gems. No recompiling, no rvm/rbenv. + Anyone can choose how they want to pimp + their vm in the same way as you can decide what stack/tools you use in a rails project. And we have the essential + tool to do this: the bundler. +
+And off course democracy decides what is good and what will stay. Natural extinction and all.
+- But you only have to look at even rubies basic blocks, to see that we have a way to go. We use Strings to represent - words and text, while we store data in Arrays or Hashes. If you look these up you may find a thread used for tying, + But you only have to look at even rubies basic blocks, to see how misleadingly language is usd. + We use Strings to represent words and text, while we store data in Arrays or Hashes. + If you look these up in a dictionary you may find: a thread used for tying, a military force, or a dish of diced meat and vegetables. So we have a way to go there.
@@ -67,15 +68,16 @@ sub-title: By way of a new look at programming. And so what we consider good programmers, are people who are good at playing computer in their head.
- But off course we have the computer right there before us. So it should do it rather than us having to simulate it. + But off course we have the computer right there before us. Really the computr should do it rather than + us having to simulate it.
What will come out of that line when we actually manage to put it into practise is unclear, though it is certain it - will be easier to do and result in huegely more powerful programs + will be easier to do and result in hugely more powerful programs
Yet to get there we need better tools. Better tools that let us understand what we are doing better. Better models of - what we call programming, and by better i mean easier to understand by people. + what we call programming, and by better i mean easier to understand by normal people (not the computer simluators).