I said > Most of these things could also be done with text-based code, but typically aren't when you're just starting out This means that it all can be done,

I said > Most of these things could also be done with text-based code, but typically aren't when you're just starting out This means that it all can be done, but isn't. Which means that it's a cultural issue, not a technical issue. Also, I was under the impression that discussion was about mainstream programming languages and mainstream visual programming languages (of which you said there were none). Here's a workable definition of mainstream: the Stackoverflow top 10. It doesn't have LabVIEW and Simulink. When you discount niches for visual programming, then you have to do it with text-based programming as well, otherwise the argument isn't fair. I presume that you know this. So I find it peculiar that you don't qualify why you're using languages that aren't (seemingly) remotely mainstream, or why you're not using mainstream examples. > Wasn't "shows a lot of things all at once" actually an argument (marketing pitch) why conventional programming language overwhelm many people who are not programmers, and visual programming languages are "thus" better because charts have a lot less "intellectual density" than computer code?! I wouldn't know. I'm quitting this discussion, the exclamation mark + question mark, "what is actually the difference?" There seems to be no wonder or curiosity from your side. Instead it seems purely adverserial.