4 ms·

> Wikipedia is not a good example: it is exclusively for humans. Not exclusively. Bots and Wikidata have shown themselves pretty capable of doing complex autom

> Wikipedia is not a good example: it is exclusively for humans. Not exclusively. Bots and Wikidata have shown themselves pretty capable of doing complex automated tasks on top of the structured data contained in the encyclopedia. And the wiki platform plus templates is a very general and flexible data structure that makes it easy for humans and software to collaborate. > In order for something to be understood by a computer, it must be specified in formal terms This doesn't need to be that way, at least not for 100% of the system. End-user development tools like spreadsheets and Programming By Example can be used to ease the impedance mismatch without requiring the human to specify by hand every single step in a formal language, so that partially ambiguous inputs can be used to specify valid programs. Only the task of building system software should require the full technical approach; most business applications can benefit from looser approaches - in fact being less strict can be a benefit in the requirements specification phase, just like User-centered design has shown us. Combine that with logic solvers and deep learning, and in the future we could get some systems that can use very high-level commands to build fairly complex automated behaviors.

the_af 11y ago
You have a point about wiki bots, I hadn't thought of that. But isn't the "Wiki platform plus templates" an example of a textual programming language with a precise syntax and rules? As for the rest, I think it's a pipe dream except for the most basic, "build this out of predetermined blocks" apps.
- TuringTest 11y ago
  Does the Visual Editor in Wikipedia count as a visual tool? :-P My point is that the structure of a wiki, where each unit of content is a separate building block, can be used to build a visual system in the same way that you can build a textual one; the basic components of storage and APIs are the same, only the thin syntax layer is different. You are no longer dependent on the single stream of raw text following a strict syntax, which is the basis from which compilers generate binary code in traditional languages; you'd be able to build programs by arranging code and data in a network within a semi-structured platform, which is one of the characteristics of visual tools. You're right that stuff like this has been a pipe dream for at least half a century, since the Mother of All Demos; but in the very recent years I've seen a lot of the required pieces falling into place, so I believe it to be possible. If we apply the same amount of engineering work and refinements that went form Engelbart's demo to modern desktop systems, we could have a functioning system with this paradigm; the basis are in place for it, and many of us have the vision of the benefits it shall provide. Of course, part of building a program may require describing some components using a textual representation, where it makes the most sense; but with a wiki-like "outliner" platform, parts of the working system could be programmed using visual code, and be integrated with those other components programmed in traditional languages. Heck, GUI builders and visual tools for database schemas already work that way; the only thing they lack is the capability to be expanded with new components, which this new family of visual tools have.

the_af 11y ago

You have a point about wiki bots, I hadn't thought of that. But isn't the "Wiki platform plus templates" an example of a textual programming language with a precise syntax and rules? As for the rest, I think it's a pipe dream except for the most basic, "build this out of predetermined blocks" apps.

TuringTest 11y ago
Does the Visual Editor in Wikipedia count as a visual tool? :-P My point is that the structure of a wiki, where each unit of content is a separate building block, can be used to build a visual system in the same way that you can build a textual one; the basic components of storage and APIs are the same, only the thin syntax layer is different. You are no longer dependent on the single stream of raw text following a strict syntax, which is the basis from which compilers generate binary code in traditional languages; you'd be able to build programs by arranging code and data in a network within a semi-structured platform, which is one of the characteristics of visual tools. You're right that stuff like this has been a pipe dream for at least half a century, since the Mother of All Demos; but in the very recent years I've seen a lot of the required pieces falling into place, so I believe it to be possible. If we apply the same amount of engineering work and refinements that went form Engelbart's demo to modern desktop systems, we could have a functioning system with this paradigm; the basis are in place for it, and many of us have the vision of the benefits it shall provide. Of course, part of building a program may require describing some components using a textual representation, where it makes the most sense; but with a wiki-like "outliner" platform, parts of the working system could be programmed using visual code, and be integrated with those other components programmed in traditional languages. Heck, GUI builders and visual tools for database schemas already work that way; the only thing they lack is the capability to be expanded with new components, which this new family of visual tools have.