> Programming languages (von nuemann languages) are all opinionated expositions of the same machinery, so the cost of translating the model to the language is a real cost.
I don't think so unless you're talking about raw assembly. Even with C, you got structs (clump of data) and functions (which give us nice abstractions over pieces of logi) as well as syntactic sugar for branching and looping. OOP is a whole different model of design. And FP has a whole other basis of computation theory (evaluation and reduction from lambda calculus).
It's kinda like drawing in a sense. People think they know what something is and you ask them to draw a chair or a bike and they can't do it. So you ask someone to give you the specs of something like an attendance form, and they can't readily give it. Drafting the specs is the real cost, not implementing it.
> My anecdata is the opposite of yours; the people that feel like the _actually coding_ is the bottleneck tend to be the people that have the _most_ editor fluency, as they are(were?) motivated to remove the bottleneck.
If it were, we wouldn't have a drought of editor models. Vim and Emacs are decades old. Then VSCode is basically the same thing as sublime, kate, notepad++, and the various IDE out there. Coding isn't the bottleneck.
Who cares if it is a bottleneck or not? Can you type faster than an LLM? Send the code to the real bottleneck and spend your time taking a walk outside or something.
I don't think so unless you're talking about raw assembly. Even with C, you got structs (clump of data) and functions (which give us nice abstractions over pieces of logi) as well as syntactic sugar for branching and looping. OOP is a whole different model of design. And FP has a whole other basis of computation theory (evaluation and reduction from lambda calculus).
It's kinda like drawing in a sense. People think they know what something is and you ask them to draw a chair or a bike and they can't do it. So you ask someone to give you the specs of something like an attendance form, and they can't readily give it. Drafting the specs is the real cost, not implementing it.
> My anecdata is the opposite of yours; the people that feel like the _actually coding_ is the bottleneck tend to be the people that have the _most_ editor fluency, as they are(were?) motivated to remove the bottleneck.
If it were, we wouldn't have a drought of editor models. Vim and Emacs are decades old. Then VSCode is basically the same thing as sublime, kate, notepad++, and the various IDE out there. Coding isn't the bottleneck.