3 ms·
I use visual programming all the time. On my whiteboard. The task to convert that into code is trivial. Only manual labour. If I could stay on the whiteboard w
by xaedes 9y ago
I use visual programming all the time. On my whiteboard.
The task to convert that into code is trivial. Only manual labour.
If I could stay on the whiteboard with my pen and compile parts of my program from there, that would be awesome.
Btw: I tried some "Smart" Whiteboards, but they are all just bad quality. Real whiteboards are still superior for whatever you do with whiteboarsd.
- icebraining 9y agoAre your drawings precise enough that someone else could keep working on them without ever talking to you?
- xaedes 9y agoYour point being, that a secondary information channel is necessary because the whiteboard drawing itself isn't complete? I guess a lot of times formal errors and the like will happen on whiteboard. So no, the drawings probably aren't precise enough. The process needs to be a dialog. Similar to the interaction you have with your compiler: You provide stuff. "Computer says no" (or tells you what is missing/etc) You alter your stuff and give it back to your tool. That loop repeats. Something similar will be necessary for "whiteboard programming". I guess it is not as trivial to convert drawings to code as I stated. But it still a tedious task that should be automated as much as possible.