T i m  wrote:

> I've done the odd batch file and quite a few DOS CONFIG.SYS and
> AUTOEXEC.BATs in my time but I'm not sure if that's programming in the
> full sense of the word or more like scripting?

That's about right. The line between "programming" and "scripting" is
now a lot more blurred than it used to be; it's now more of a question
of degree. If what you write is a set of steps, it's probably a script.
If it's a more complicated, conditionally branching set of tasks and
subtasks, it's probably a program.


> >Do recent developments make it easier or harder to write software
> > that
> >is useable across a number of platforms?
> 
> I would imagine there are programs that (nearly) write programs these
> days,

It's more that there are plenty of "libraries" of code out there that
you can bolt together. Think of them like tools, I guess. They range
from simple hacksaws (a method which capitalises all the text in a
string for you) to some uber-complex specialised machinery for a
specific, complex task (something to parse documents and translate
between formats).

Whereas, in the old days, you'd have to create your own tools (think
creating a mitre box), these days there's such a vast library out there
that you can do quite complicated things very quickly by simply
collecting together the right set of tools.

Most of the difficulty of modern programming is actually finding the
libraries best suited to the job in hand. For example, at work we're
making use of JSF, Webflow, Mockito, Junit, Spring and many others, all
of which do one very specific job (eg webflow makes it easier to tie web
pages into a storyboard; if you're overdrawn and click here, you end up
on this page, if you make a payment which fails then you end up on that
page).

Having all that stuff available frees you from dealing with solving the
implementation issues and lets you spend more time addressing the actual
requirements.
 
> > I can see that it might be
> >possible to write software that would run under OSX and UNIX, but
> > what
> >about the user interface? Unless it was very basic, this was always
> > the
> >b****r.
> 
> I think to make that 'right' you need to be very particular and also
> quite artistic (layout, drop shadows, 3d buttons etc).

That's the kind of implementation detail that's done for you. Typically
you drag controls (buttons, lists, etc) onto a canvas and just worry
about tying it to the functionality; decisions as to the aesthetics are
largely dealt with (as well as interaction-level functionality such as
"when I click the scroll arrow, I want it to scroll) automatically, and
huge clues are given to help you space out and align things sensibly.
This allows you to spend more time deciding how the UI is best designed
to achieve the task as a whole, rather than getting the damned scrollbar
working.

> I've never been good at parallel / multi - tasking so probably why I
> never had much of an interest past copying a BASIC game out of a mag
> and into my Spectrum.

The real appeal of programming is not copying code out of magazines, but
in finding something you want to be able to do, and writing something
that lets you do it. That hasn't changed one iota since the first days
of programming; developers have an itch they want to scratch, and
scratching that itch feels gooood....

    -zoara-

-- 
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm