Making it easier

Making it easier

Rate This
  • Comments 19

I read an article in a technology column on MSNBC a while back, the upshot of which was “I have umpteen-dozen passwords I’ve got to have memorized these days; I thought technology was supposed to make my life easier!”

Really?

First of all, let’s leave aside the obvious fact that our column writer has a technology-driven standard of living which includes affordable access to varieties of food, drink, shelter, clothing, medicine, travel, and entertainment all of which were beyond the wildest dreams of the crowned heads of Europe less than two centuries ago, much less the peasants. Technology does seem to have made lives a lot easier all around. But I rather want to address the actual claim: is the purpose of technology to make your life easier?

I don’t think it is. I think the purpose of technology is to make specific tasks easier.

Surprise! Let’s take a task like “communicate with a person in Australia”. Suppose you live in, say, London. In the early 1800’s, the best way to get a message to a colleague in Australia was to write the message out with your goose quill pen, making multiple copies. Wrap each up in oilcloth, the most waterproof substance of the time. Find several convenient Royal Navy ships or merchant ships going to Australia by different routes and at different times; Napoleon might sink several of them but one of them will probably get through. Entrust your waterproofed messages to the captains of those ships, and then wait the several months it takes to get the message around either the Cape or the Horn and the reply back to you.

I take this opportunity to point out that this already requires an extremely high level of technology. Safely navigating a vessel from England to Australia is not an easy task under the best of circumstances. But obviously we can do better now; the 1800’s solution strikes me as somewhat more arduous and time-consuming as a whole than having to remember your email password.

The task of communicating with Australia is now much easier, thanks to improved technology. And because we have increased the scope of what is feasible, we can take advantage of new capabilities; in the 1800’s, real-time arbitraging of price differences between Australian and European commodity market derivatives was not anyone’s job description, but I’m sure that there are people pursuing this highly complex task today. The technology enables us to find new ways to complicate our lives, ways that were never possible before because we were too busy spending effort on solving other problems.

I think about this kind of thing a lot in the context of programming language design.

When we add a new feature to the language, we almost always make a specific task easier. But in doing so, we also almost always make the language as a whole more complex and therefore harder to learn. We make it more likely that there will be a communications divide between those who know how the new feature works and those who do not, making it harder for everyone to read and understand each other’s code.

This is one of the major reasons why new features start with “-100 points”, as I’ve often said. Coming up with features that make specific tasks easier is, well, easy. But that’s not enough; the feature has to make things so much better that it justifies the additional complexity added to the language.

******

Wikimedia Commons photo by Ted “Rufus” Ross.

  • Joren, pminaev,

    Putting the readonly at the front (Joren's syntax) would be just fine, as would a "different" word (e.g. initonly) on the setter.

    Because of the various limitations with automatic properties, I find that in my designs I CAN only use them about 5% of the time, because this is such a low percentage, and because of the benefits of consistancy, the reality is that I do not use them at all in designs where I have architectural control.

    If addational capabilities such as this (ideally along with support for laxy evaluation, pre and post set conditioning) then they would have a major benefit.

  • The task of communicating with Australia is now much easier, thanks to improved technology.

    Reading this from Australia and can't help but think how much 'smaller' the world is thanks to technology.

  • >the purpose of technology is to make specific tasks easier

    I think the purpose of a specific technology is to make a specific task (or tasks) easier; the purpose of technology in general, as a part of human life and culture, is to free humans from as much routine as possible in order to let humans to do what no machine can do: the CREATIVE WORK.

    It's one hell of a debate, about whether or not machines can actually get creative; personally, I don't believe so (although the Matrix, especially the first installment, is still among my favorites - it all makes sense if you think different kind of "machines", like "the bureaucratic machine", or "the corporate machine"). Some Gen Y guys called me a "technological pessimist" for that belief of mine: they are positive that the purpose of technology is to free humans from ANY work, "just to have fun". Well, maybe I am that, I am not Gen Y, after all (just a couple of years too early), but the only way to convince me otherwise is to write a program (in C#, preferably) that will blog INSTEAD of the author. :-)

    Or, maybe, a C# compiler that itself develops its own next version - how's that for a challenge to the C# meta-programming champions?

    @Dominic, you and me both: I am in Australia, too

  • I would argue that making life easier and making specific tasks easier are the two faces of the same coin. Life is a series of tasks that we do (of course one can do nothing all the time and still not finishing with that). If a technology is able to simplify one task, or maybe several, than we can say it simplifies our life.

Page 2 of 2 (19 items) 12