> The difference there is that the thing you are authoring is itself visual. Perhaps. Or it might be structural, an object to be 3d printed. It would have a ph

> The difference there is that the thing you are authoring is itself visual. Perhaps. Or it might be structural, an object to be 3d printed. It would have a physical appearance - but perhaps not be "inherently visual", any more than the algorithms for adjusting a quadcopter for autonomous hovering is "inherently aerial"? > people who are good at abstract reasoning and solving problems but don't have good aesthetic and spatial sense wouldn't be able to "write good code". Isn't that the case with textual representation of code too? Without a sense for aesthetics, one cannot create "beautiful code"? A chessboard/game can be represented in many ways in the form of code/syntax - even mathematical equations - and yet I would argue it is less accessible to learn and play chess going from just the standard textual representation, than from a board? How would you teach chess moves: by lifting a castle off the board, showing that it can move up-and-down and sideways, like so - or by saying that the piece-instances initialized to position a1,a8,h1 and h8 can move only be changing either of its two coordinates up and down?