![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI could have found an answer that fitted this question and yesterdays question both, but I decided they were interesting in different ways.
Technological innovations I think we're groping towards, which I'm impatient to have already:
A programming language with a syntax as straightforward as python, but works like C++14 is trying to, of letting it all compile to blazing fast code, even for embedded systems, by default, but letting you easily use dynamic typing where you actually want it. And of letting you use static type checking MOST of the time, but lets you be as dynamic as you need when you actually need it.
Widespread 3D printing of replacement parts, etc. We're nearly there, but we're waiting for a slightly wider variety of materials, and a wider database of possible things. Where you can say "I want this £10 widget holder from the supermarket, but can I get one 30% longer if I pay extra? OK? Thank you!"
Private cars replaced by mega-fleets of robot taxis and universal good public transport throughout/between all population dense areas.
Everyone uses git, or another dvcs, and the interface is actually consistent and friendly for everybody.
Decent, standardised, change-tracking and formatting for non-plain-text documents that allows sensible merging. (OK, this seems to be two steps forward and three steps back, so maybe there's no point waiting for it, but I'd still like it! :))
Technological innovations I think we're groping towards, which I'm impatient to have already:
A programming language with a syntax as straightforward as python, but works like C++14 is trying to, of letting it all compile to blazing fast code, even for embedded systems, by default, but letting you easily use dynamic typing where you actually want it. And of letting you use static type checking MOST of the time, but lets you be as dynamic as you need when you actually need it.
Widespread 3D printing of replacement parts, etc. We're nearly there, but we're waiting for a slightly wider variety of materials, and a wider database of possible things. Where you can say "I want this £10 widget holder from the supermarket, but can I get one 30% longer if I pay extra? OK? Thank you!"
Private cars replaced by mega-fleets of robot taxis and universal good public transport throughout/between all population dense areas.
Everyone uses git, or another dvcs, and the interface is actually consistent and friendly for everybody.
Decent, standardised, change-tracking and formatting for non-plain-text documents that allows sensible merging. (OK, this seems to be two steps forward and three steps back, so maybe there's no point waiting for it, but I'd still like it! :))
no subject
Date: 2014-12-07 12:42 pm (UTC)Have you looked at C#, which _is_ really fast, and allows dynamic objects when necessary (but most of the time doesn't need them)?
no subject
Date: 2014-12-07 04:28 pm (UTC)I am interested in how often this as actually true. My impression is that a lot of Python idioms could be translated into C++14, and they would be _unwieldy_ but could, in principle, be translated without losing information. (With the caveat that it's only fast if you can prove at compile time what the types can be, which is why I mention static typing: that 90% of the time, you DO know the types at compile time.) But I've not actually tested this idea. I'm not sure if it would be practical to actually DO that or not (it might take as much effort as all the decades spent developing C compilers).