3 ms·

It's not efficient for large scale things. It's like communicating with memes, you can't exactly write a news article with just memes. It's useful to allow mor

It's not efficient for large scale things. It's like communicating with memes, you can't exactly write a news article with just memes. It's useful to allow more "citizen devs" (regular folk with little exposure) to come up with prototype high level proof of concept apps,including UX design. It is a big deal in the corporate arenas I've had exposure too,but I think widespread adoption is still years away. You will always need non-visual languages to do things in a featureful and scalable way.

bmitc 6y ago
> It's not efficient for large scale things. > You will always need non-visual languages to do things in a featureful and scalable way. What is an example of a system that you have developed where things broke down with a visual programming language?
- badrabbit 6y ago
  I needed to make an API request to a cloud service provider but it supported only one provider and even then not the api auth (oauth2) I needed. I couldn't even begin to try and figure out how to implement the api myself or patch in oauth2 support just with the visual lanaguage's facilities.
  - bmitc 6y ago
    How is that a limitation of the visual programming paradigm and not a library problem? And that doesn't have much to do with scaling to a large program or system.
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      The library isn't in a visual language. You can't do things with it if an interface/lib to do that thing hasn't been implemented by a non-visual language.
      - bmitc 6y ago
        That is again a limitation of the particular language you were using (which one?) and not a limitation of the paradigm. There's nothing there that's an inherent problem of visual programming languages, which is my point in asking. For example, in LabVIEW, you have TCP/IP, HTTP, UDP, CAN, serial, MODBUS, and more protocols and can build things out of them. If there's a missing protocol, then you can write your own, call a C/C++ DLL, .NET assembly, Python script, or a command line application, just like any other language (actually more than most languages).

bmitc 6y ago

> It's not efficient for large scale things. > You will always need non-visual languages to do things in a featureful and scalable way. What is an example of a system that you have developed where things broke down with a visual programming language?

badrabbit 6y ago
I needed to make an API request to a cloud service provider but it supported only one provider and even then not the api auth (oauth2) I needed. I couldn't even begin to try and figure out how to implement the api myself or patch in oauth2 support just with the visual lanaguage's facilities.
- bmitc 6y ago
  How is that a limitation of the visual programming paradigm and not a library problem? And that doesn't have much to do with scaling to a large program or system.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    The library isn't in a visual language. You can't do things with it if an interface/lib to do that thing hasn't been implemented by a non-visual language.
    - bmitc 6y ago
      That is again a limitation of the particular language you were using (which one?) and not a limitation of the paradigm. There's nothing there that's an inherent problem of visual programming languages, which is my point in asking. For example, in LabVIEW, you have TCP/IP, HTTP, UDP, CAN, serial, MODBUS, and more protocols and can build things out of them. If there's a missing protocol, then you can write your own, call a C/C++ DLL, .NET assembly, Python script, or a command line application, just like any other language (actually more than most languages).