3 ms·

> But after having discussed and researched this stuff for years and in the context of at least 8 or 10 tools, there is some psychological issue holding us back

> But after having discussed and researched this stuff for years and in the context of at least 8 or 10 tools, there is some psychological issue holding us back rather than a practical one. I think the benefits of graph-based programming are pretty clear. Having used such a tool already, I see the benefits of being able to visualize code at the top level. In fact, everyone does, we just don't have the time or willpower to recreate the visual layer for all our code. When that visual layer is built into the language, it saves everyone time, both in building and understanding. I don't think plain code is going away anytime soon, and it will always be an option, but I'd like to see more done in the visual top layer space, like Luna. It has a level of conciseness like fuctional programming that I enjoy. Almost like bringing back (Turing's?) finite state machines at a higher level. I suspect the problem to which you allude, the lack of pervasiveness of visual-based programming, has more to do with how many folks have implemented it successfully. You may not be aware, but Ab Initio runs in a lot of big enterprise software stacks. People trained in that software are proficient in building solutions quickly with little or no CS background. Jobs in that tool remain high salaried to this day. The company is quite secretive and only licenses/trains with certain consultancies.

ilaksh 9y ago
But are those people programmers? I mean if you show a 'real' programmer those people doing their job, will they really think they are doing programming or software engineers? Are you sure that things like graphical ETL such as SSIS, graphical or automated reporting, and more generally database-oriented RAD tools are not actually fairly common?
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > But are those people programmers? I mean if you show a 'real' programmer those people doing their job, will they really think they are doing programming or software engineers? I don't know. I guess some programmers might turn their noses up at a graphical interface at the top level. But it doesn't matter. The result was always a working, maintainable, fast tool that achieved the desired goal. If I built a machine using sticks and stones that could accurately predict the week's weather, how many people would care that I didn't use satellites? Probably the people in the satellite industry, but, if I demonstrate my solution is better, those folks will need to adapt or face loss of wages. I was a CS major and went to work for an Ab Initio consultancy, not realizing they also hired non-programmers and trained them. It worked fine and we replaced Java consultants all the time because their code wasn't as maintainable or as fast as ours. I'm not claiming that graphical tools will surpass Python, but based on my experience, I think they deserve a seat at the table. > Are you sure that things like graphical ETL such as SSIS, graphical or automated reporting, and more generally database-oriented RAD tools are not actually fairly common? I think they are common in enterprise, but the languages are often proprietary or don't have the level of open source support that traditional programming languages have had. I'm looking forward to seeing what will come of Luna lang [1] and stuff like 2D Syntax in the future. You previously stated, > Programming is definitionally limited to cryptic text. Anything that deviates from that, especially if it makes it non-cryptic or easy, is no longer a programming tool; it becomes a tool for lowly users. This detracts from the identity of programmers because that is tied to producing and consuming cryptic text. But, graphical boxes on the screen can be thought of as libraries. We don't consider libraries to be tools for lowly users, just as we don't consider calculators or computers lowly. Things that make our job simpler aren't lowly, they're empowering. [1] http://www.luna-lang.org/ http://www.luna-lang.org/
  - ilaksh 9y ago
    I never thought that, just trying to explain the false psychological hangup. Luna is cool but there have been lots of tools like it that didn't become super popular for programmers. Just take a screencast of yourself doing programming in Ab Initio for some things that involve little to no textual code input. Then find three or four programmers and ask them if they think you are a good coder/programmer/software engineer. If you get an honest answer they will say you are a good Ab Initio expert but do not believe you are doing programming. I dont think that is correct but I think this dumb perceptual issue where programming is tied to cryptic text is the reason those tools are not more popular for people who call themselves programmers.

ilaksh 9y ago

But are those people programmers? I mean if you show a 'real' programmer those people doing their job, will they really think they are doing programming or software engineers? Are you sure that things like graphical ETL such as SSIS, graphical or automated reporting, and more generally database-oriented RAD tools are not actually fairly common?

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> But are those people programmers? I mean if you show a 'real' programmer those people doing their job, will they really think they are doing programming or software engineers? I don't know. I guess some programmers might turn their noses up at a graphical interface at the top level. But it doesn't matter. The result was always a working, maintainable, fast tool that achieved the desired goal. If I built a machine using sticks and stones that could accurately predict the week's weather, how many people would care that I didn't use satellites? Probably the people in the satellite industry, but, if I demonstrate my solution is better, those folks will need to adapt or face loss of wages. I was a CS major and went to work for an Ab Initio consultancy, not realizing they also hired non-programmers and trained them. It worked fine and we replaced Java consultants all the time because their code wasn't as maintainable or as fast as ours. I'm not claiming that graphical tools will surpass Python, but based on my experience, I think they deserve a seat at the table. > Are you sure that things like graphical ETL such as SSIS, graphical or automated reporting, and more generally database-oriented RAD tools are not actually fairly common? I think they are common in enterprise, but the languages are often proprietary or don't have the level of open source support that traditional programming languages have had. I'm looking forward to seeing what will come of Luna lang [1] and stuff like 2D Syntax in the future. You previously stated, > Programming is definitionally limited to cryptic text. Anything that deviates from that, especially if it makes it non-cryptic or easy, is no longer a programming tool; it becomes a tool for lowly users. This detracts from the identity of programmers because that is tied to producing and consuming cryptic text. But, graphical boxes on the screen can be thought of as libraries. We don't consider libraries to be tools for lowly users, just as we don't consider calculators or computers lowly. Things that make our job simpler aren't lowly, they're empowering. [1] http://www.luna-lang.org/ http://www.luna-lang.org/
- ilaksh 9y ago
  I never thought that, just trying to explain the false psychological hangup. Luna is cool but there have been lots of tools like it that didn't become super popular for programmers. Just take a screencast of yourself doing programming in Ab Initio for some things that involve little to no textual code input. Then find three or four programmers and ask them if they think you are a good coder/programmer/software engineer. If you get an honest answer they will say you are a good Ab Initio expert but do not believe you are doing programming. I dont think that is correct but I think this dumb perceptual issue where programming is tied to cryptic text is the reason those tools are not more popular for people who call themselves programmers.