Georg WeissenbacherMar 5
@krismicinski @shriramk @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek we have been claiming for decades that we are not just educating coding monkeys, so it shouldn't really matter that LLMs can now do all the coding. As far as I see it, it's still necessary to identify and clearly formulate verifiable requirements and specifications, come up with a modular design, and verify the whole thing, because I still believe the ultimate responsibilty lies with the developer. So students still need to understand the fundamentals. But yes, it has become much harder to check *at scale* whether they actually grasped them.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6

@GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek
Yes to most of that. I think it's not that hard to assess if that is what people were always assessing that.

I actually disagree w/ your opening comment. Most intro CS educators will say (and have said), "I don't teach programming, I teach *problem solving*" (whatever the fuck that is). My response is, "great, this should be your liberation! Programming got easy, what are your «problem solving» ideas?"

Show threadTony Garnock-JonesMar 6
@shriramk @GeorgWeissenbacher @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek ... did programming get easy? Can one be said to be programming if one asks someone else (or an LLM) to write a program for you? Or is some other kind of (not- or not-quite-programming) interaction going on?
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek
I very much think of what I'm doing with Claude Code as a kind of programming — indeed, the kind of programming I always wished I could do! But if it makes you happier to use a different term for it (not "vibecoding", that has too many specific connotations and is definitely not how *I'm* doing things), and it's *useful* to have that other term…that's fine by me. I guess my slogan is: "Philosophy…but not too much".
Show threadLindsey KuperMar 6
@shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek This comment made me realize something about myself: this is *not* a kind of programming I always wished I could do. I really only like programming because I like manipulating formal systems. That might explain a lot about why this kind of programming doesn't appeal to me, aside from all the bad externalities.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@lindsey @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek
You were formal about some things and utterly informal about other things. Where, for instance, did you document your software architecture, your temporal properties, your concurrency requirements, etc.? I'm going to guess a whole bunch of things were *not* captured by your "formal systems" and were left to documentation, comments, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. ↵
Show threadckfiniteMar 6

@shriramk To me this is an odd (and, frankly, extremely personal-seeming) attack. It is possible to have a formal system that one enjoys manipulating (a subjective assessment) that is limited in scope or does not capture other aspects of the system. I, fundamentally, do not think that you must formalize your entire world in order to pick parts of it off into interesting and fun abstractions that can be manipulated into and of themselves.

I read this as arguing that Lindsey's personal, subjective, enjoyment was invalid due to not having a complete formal world model, and I ultimately think that this isn't a valid position. You might not have the same opinion, but I find it bizarre to argue that the very enjoyment is wrong.

Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@ckfinite Nowhere did I question Lindsey's right to, or sense of, *enjoyment*. Nor would it make any *sense* for me to say "no, you didn't really enjoy the thing you said you enjoyed". I'm pointing out that Lindsey was already informal in various ways, and PL people have a particular blind spot about how formal/informal we really are (as in, we think we're super-formal when we're actually only 1-2 degrees more formal than the entirely-informal).
Show threadLindsey Kuper
@shriramk @ckfinite I am, indeed, informal in various ways! In fact, I just added it to my Mastodon bio in case there is any danger of confusion on that point.
Mar 7 at 12:02amWeb