Right here, the #1 mistake on the whole idea: > Why is it so? An old adage tells us “A picture is worth a thousand words” and intuitively we know that text is

Right here, the #1 mistake on the whole idea: > Why is it so? An old adage tells us “A picture is worth a thousand words” and intuitively we know that text is clearly not the best way to represent everything. All those bright minds working on the visual programming languages were clearly onto something, but seems like we are missing something essential to make visual programming a reality. Yeah, that "missing something essential" is not see that write text IS VISUAL. The examples comparing graphs and text show how much BETTER is the text side. “A picture is worth a thousand words” is more about how much you talk, and bam, you can show instead. You can do that with TEXT. I will summarize EVERYTHING in a single char: ∞ Done. See? Programming is using text because text is VERY visual. Fonts are different shapes, sizes, colors, bold, italic, etc: That is a lot of visualization! Combine with ways to do hyperlink and all that and you get something very powerful. --- What is the real problem, IMHO, is that there are not much advance in how leverage the rich information that a compiler infrastructure has until recently (with things like language serve protocol, tree-siter, error with diagnostics, etc), and archaic editors with SUB PAR environments (shell, vim, ...) are terrible places to do nicer! And this critique account for the fact that most are not even on par with TurboVision or FoxPro DOS! And this combine with the fact some languages (like C) are so bad that is VERY hard to "analyze them", because if the compiler get confused and output thousands of errors then you can't make it better with fancy graphics. In other words: You need to align everything to make the idea work great. This is not novel: We already have in the past much better implementations like hypercard, smalltalk, fox pro, borland pascal, etc