3 ms·

This looks very interesting, but the most confusing part for me is how code appears on these printed pages. Do you have to type it in computer and print to run

by flixic 9y ago

This looks very interesting, but the most confusing part for me is how code appears on these printed pages. Do you have to type it in computer and print to run, using physical space just to organise, not actually develop? All the examples show these pieces of paper already being there, just moved and interacted with. I'm very curious if DynamicLand code can be created without touching keyboard, and actually printing new sheets by just moving and interacting with other sheets, making it actually self-hosting. Also, their examples are very visual and quite complicated (car aerodynamics flow). Doing this from scratch might be quite challenging, unless building blocks are very smart. --- Sidenote: I'm surprised to learn that code printed on these sheets is Lua-based. Lua does not have a lot of syntax, but does have some, and I would think that any language that is meant to be created in physical space should aim for the most minimal syntax, almost none if possible. Lisp comes to mind, as I can image a physical representation of S-expressions much better than Lua code.

TheRealPomax 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand why one would expect that any language that is meant to be created in physical space should aim for the most minimal syntax. Regular folks who don't program in their daily life connect best with things they can read: presenting them with lisp is a bit like presenting them with mathmatical notation: even if those that are marginally familiar with them will say it's simple, it's exactly too difficult to be accessible for people who have _no_ familiarity with them at all. You actually want that verbosity of added syntax, because it lets people recognize something in what is inherently alien to them.
- flixic 9y ago
  You don't want syntax because you don't want Magnetic Poetry kits, having to arrange very special "structure words" in very special places, and hope that "lines" make sense. Don't think about (Lisp (notation)) -- think about the fact that the entire syntax is "this is enclosing box" (can easily be done with paper by putting smaller sheets on larger ones) and "this is the order of items within the box" (very natural to re-arrange these blocks). Lisp doesn't have lines, in that sense, and lines don't make a lot of sense in physical world. Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing about the fact that Lisp is a bit complicated to be first programming language _when writing text_. But its design is great for physical manipulation.

by flixic 9y ago

TheRealPomax 9y ago

I'm not sure I understand why one would expect that any language that is meant to be created in physical space should aim for the most minimal syntax. Regular folks who don't program in their daily life connect best with things they can read: presenting them with lisp is a bit like presenting them with mathmatical notation: even if those that are marginally familiar with them will say it's simple, it's exactly too difficult to be accessible for people who have _no_ familiarity with them at all. You actually want that verbosity of added syntax, because it lets people recognize something in what is inherently alien to them.

flixic 9y ago
You don't want syntax because you don't want Magnetic Poetry kits, having to arrange very special "structure words" in very special places, and hope that "lines" make sense. Don't think about (Lisp (notation)) -- think about the fact that the entire syntax is "this is enclosing box" (can easily be done with paper by putting smaller sheets on larger ones) and "this is the order of items within the box" (very natural to re-arrange these blocks). Lisp doesn't have lines, in that sense, and lines don't make a lot of sense in physical world. Just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing about the fact that Lisp is a bit complicated to be first programming language _when writing text_. But its design is great for physical manipulation.