5 ms·

Most times in my career that I've seen people talking about visual programming, it's not about the developers - it's about lowering the bar so that (cheaper) no

by hnick 2y ago

Most times in my career that I've seen people talking about visual programming, it's not about the developers - it's about lowering the bar so that (cheaper) non-developers can participate. A Business Analyst may or may not have a coding background, but their specifications can be quite technical and logical and hopefully they understand the details. The assumption is that if we create our own Sufficiently Advanced Online Rule Engine they can just set it all up without involving the more expensive programmers. This is discussed a bit in the first paragraph, but I just wanted to reiterate that most systems I had to deal with like this were talked about in terms of supplying business logic, rules, and control flow configuration to a pre-existing system or harness that executes that configuration. The "real" programmers work on that system, adding features, and code blocks for anything outside the specification, while the other staff setup the business logic. It works to some degree. I think things like Zapier can be quite good for this crowd, and a lot of mailing list providers have visual workflow tools that let non-programmers do a lot. A DSL like Excel formulas would be in this group too, since it operates inside an existing application, except that it's non-visual. Some document publishing tools like Exstream (I worked with it pre-HP, so years ago) did a lot in this space too. I did read and appreciate the whole article, I just noticed this part for a reason - I'm working on a visual question builder again right now for a client who wants to edit their own customer application form on their custom coded website, instead of involving costly programmers. It always ended poorly in the past at my previous company, but maybe it'll be different this time.

nottorp 2y ago
This actually works if it's not a generic visual programming solution, but if it's a DSL. Don't give the business people pretty graphical loops, give them more abstract building blocks. Unfortunately that means paying the professional programmers to build the DSL, so it doesn't reduce costs in the beginning.
m463 2y ago
> it's about lowering the bar I think that might be right. I remember the first time playing with "visual" programming (kind of). It was visual basic, probably the first version. It lowered the bar for me. I quickly learned how to create a UI element, and connect things. A button could be connected to an action. So then I was confronted with event-driven programming, and that exposure was basically what was taught to me. And then the beauty of creating a UI slowed as I exhausted the abstraction of visual basic and ended up with a lot of tedious logic. I had a similar experience with xcode on macos. I could quickly create an app, but then the user interface I created was dragged down again. It seemed to me like the elegance of a mac user interface, required what seemed like a lot of tax forms to fill out to actually get from a visual app to a working app. I really wanted to ask the UI, what dummy stuff like the app name hasn't been filled out yet? What buttons aren't connected? how do I do the non-visual stuff visually, like dragging and dropping some connection on a routine? ugh. In the end there's a beauty to plain source code, because it seems like text is the main and only abstraction. It's not mixed in with a lot of config stuff that only xcode can edit, and probably will break when xcode is upgraded.
constantcrying 2y ago
>it's about lowering the bar so that (cheaper) non-developers can participate. I think that is a terrible approach to anything. Programming isn't that hard and without a doubt anyone who can do business analysis is mentally capable of writing Python or whatever other scripting language. Instead of teaching people something universal, which they can use everywhere and which they can expand their knowledge of as needed, you are teaching them a deeply flawed process, which is highly specific, highly limited and something which the developer would never use themselves. Having a business analyst who is able to implement tasks in a standard programming language is immensely more valuable than someone who knows some graphic DSL you developed for your business. Both the interest of the learner and the corporation are in teaching real programming skills. Even the approach of creating something so "non-programmers" can do programming to is completely condescending and if I were in that position I would refuse to really engage on that basis alone.
- hnick 2y ago
  > you are teaching them a deeply flawed process, which is highly specific, highly limited and something which the developer would never use themselves. That kind of lock-in can be a feature from the employer's perspective. I did actual coding for years in an environment where what I learned was not very widely applicable at all, for similar reasons. I'm now happily in recovery :) But it makes it harder to leave when you feel like you lag behind where you should be in your career. I don't think tools like Zapier are condescending. I can and have written code to connect APIs, but Zapier made some stuff way easier, and it lets people like my wife get the same stuff done with far less effort. She has no interest in learning programming. There will be stuff the tool can't do, so then the programmers can step in. And in my prior job, many people became BAs from a coding background specifically to get out of writing code. They can do it - they don't want to. They're happier in MS Office or similar tools.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >That kind of lock-in can be a feature from the employer's perspective And it can be a huge problem, as he has to maintain a complex visual DSL and teach it to every new employee. Locking employees in seems like a very easy way to make people miserable and unproductive. An employer wants employers who are long term productive, giving them good tools and the ability to learn new things allows them to not hate their jobs. And an employee who knows basic programming is always an asset. >And in my prior job, many people became BAs from a coding background specifically to get out of writing code. They can do it - they don't want to. They're happier in MS Office or similar tools. I completely understand that. But there are definitely problems that need to be solved with programming and having people with the ability to do so can only be an asset, even if they aren't a full time developers. In general I think it is pretty hard sell to teach someone a skill with no other applications. This is different if that person only wants to achieve a certain thing, then transferability is irrelevant. But if you want someone to learn something new, it requires for them to understand why they should learn. Programming isn't particularly hard, teaching someone a standard programming language and giving them the ability to use that in their jobs, instead of a specialized DSL is an enormous benefit. If you came to me and told me you are going to teach me something which is totally different from what you yourself would do and a special way by which you have made something easy so that I can understand it, I would refuse. I guess that I might be projecting here, but I genuinely feel that many people would look at it the same way.

by hnick 2y ago

nottorp 2y ago

This actually works if it's not a generic visual programming solution, but if it's a DSL. Don't give the business people pretty graphical loops, give them more abstract building blocks. Unfortunately that means paying the professional programmers to build the DSL, so it doesn't reduce costs in the beginning.

m463 2y ago

> it's about lowering the bar I think that might be right. I remember the first time playing with "visual" programming (kind of). It was visual basic, probably the first version. It lowered the bar for me. I quickly learned how to create a UI element, and connect things. A button could be connected to an action. So then I was confronted with event-driven programming, and that exposure was basically what was taught to me. And then the beauty of creating a UI slowed as I exhausted the abstraction of visual basic and ended up with a lot of tedious logic. I had a similar experience with xcode on macos. I could quickly create an app, but then the user interface I created was dragged down again. It seemed to me like the elegance of a mac user interface, required what seemed like a lot of tax forms to fill out to actually get from a visual app to a working app. I really wanted to ask the UI, what dummy stuff like the app name hasn't been filled out yet? What buttons aren't connected? how do I do the non-visual stuff visually, like dragging and dropping some connection on a routine? ugh. In the end there's a beauty to plain source code, because it seems like text is the main and only abstraction. It's not mixed in with a lot of config stuff that only xcode can edit, and probably will break when xcode is upgraded.

constantcrying 2y ago

>it's about lowering the bar so that (cheaper) non-developers can participate. I think that is a terrible approach to anything. Programming isn't that hard and without a doubt anyone who can do business analysis is mentally capable of writing Python or whatever other scripting language. Instead of teaching people something universal, which they can use everywhere and which they can expand their knowledge of as needed, you are teaching them a deeply flawed process, which is highly specific, highly limited and something which the developer would never use themselves. Having a business analyst who is able to implement tasks in a standard programming language is immensely more valuable than someone who knows some graphic DSL you developed for your business. Both the interest of the learner and the corporation are in teaching real programming skills. Even the approach of creating something so "non-programmers" can do programming to is completely condescending and if I were in that position I would refuse to really engage on that basis alone.

hnick 2y ago
> you are teaching them a deeply flawed process, which is highly specific, highly limited and something which the developer would never use themselves. That kind of lock-in can be a feature from the employer's perspective. I did actual coding for years in an environment where what I learned was not very widely applicable at all, for similar reasons. I'm now happily in recovery :) But it makes it harder to leave when you feel like you lag behind where you should be in your career. I don't think tools like Zapier are condescending. I can and have written code to connect APIs, but Zapier made some stuff way easier, and it lets people like my wife get the same stuff done with far less effort. She has no interest in learning programming. There will be stuff the tool can't do, so then the programmers can step in. And in my prior job, many people became BAs from a coding background specifically to get out of writing code. They can do it - they don't want to. They're happier in MS Office or similar tools.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >That kind of lock-in can be a feature from the employer's perspective And it can be a huge problem, as he has to maintain a complex visual DSL and teach it to every new employee. Locking employees in seems like a very easy way to make people miserable and unproductive. An employer wants employers who are long term productive, giving them good tools and the ability to learn new things allows them to not hate their jobs. And an employee who knows basic programming is always an asset. >And in my prior job, many people became BAs from a coding background specifically to get out of writing code. They can do it - they don't want to. They're happier in MS Office or similar tools. I completely understand that. But there are definitely problems that need to be solved with programming and having people with the ability to do so can only be an asset, even if they aren't a full time developers. In general I think it is pretty hard sell to teach someone a skill with no other applications. This is different if that person only wants to achieve a certain thing, then transferability is irrelevant. But if you want someone to learn something new, it requires for them to understand why they should learn. Programming isn't particularly hard, teaching someone a standard programming language and giving them the ability to use that in their jobs, instead of a specialized DSL is an enormous benefit. If you came to me and told me you are going to teach me something which is totally different from what you yourself would do and a special way by which you have made something easy so that I can understand it, I would refuse. I guess that I might be projecting here, but I genuinely feel that many people would look at it the same way.