We can model programming as search, but programming as humans do it is more like design than search. I mean this in the qualitative and experiential sense.
I don’t sit in front of the screen as candidate programs flash by until I see the one that I want.
I also don’t edit by AST transformations from one valid program to another, like edges in a graph.
I really don’t see the possible program space as all that relevant.
> I also don’t edit by AST transformations from one valid program to another, like edges in a graph.
I don't really see how else you would edit a program? That's what you're doing when you type at your IDE, right?
But I think you're understanding how I think of it, feel free to take it or leave it. I'm not gunnuh die on a hill of insisting my way of thinking of it is right, it's just right for me.
> I really don’t see the possible program space as all that relevant.
In my example, I fell into a silently invalid state. In a more constrained environment, I wouldn't have. It's easier to go bowling with the bumpers turned on, and if your goal was to make as many strikes as possible (rather than to be sporting), surely you'd only ever bowl with the bumpers.
It's a Murphy's law thing. The more invalid states you have, the easier it is to get mired there.
Yes, of course I do too, I live on the same planet, but that's an unstructured interface to changing the AST.
(You can reply to comments when the reply button is hidden by clicking the link to go directly to the post. I consider it a polite request by dang to consider whether a conversation is getting too heated, which I don't think it is here at all. Cheers, I'll try to check those editors out.)
I don’t sit in front of the screen as candidate programs flash by until I see the one that I want.
I also don’t edit by AST transformations from one valid program to another, like edges in a graph.
I really don’t see the possible program space as all that relevant.