3 ms·

I'm a programmer. I started learning syntax as a kid. I write code all the time. I adapt to new language concepts and syntax. I can use vim effectively. I can t

by delinka 14y ago

I'm a programmer. I started learning syntax as a kid. I write code all the time. I adapt to new language concepts and syntax. I can use vim effectively. I can tolerate an IDE. I still cannot get ideas out of my head and into the computer as fast as I "need" to. I believe something graphical, visual, or the like is going the right direction. I want graphical touch programming (not typing syntax) for organizing logic into programs but I need the power to manipulate details. To me, it's not a question of ability to learn syntax, it's about speed- how fast can I get this great new idea into an app? I believe ultimately it will be by manipulating objects on a touchscreen or in some 3D holographic thing.

yxhuvud 14y ago
I'd suggest you learn how to touch type if you care about getting stuff out of your head fast. Just because it has a graphical interface doesn't mean the process of telling the computer what to do will be faster. The reason for this is simple - there are still just as much stuff you need to tell the computer for it to be able to do what it must.
ef4 14y ago
It would indeed be great to have some "higher bandwidth" way to interact with a program under development. And better graphical tools could clearly increase the bandwidth out from computer to programmer. But for bandwidth into the computer, there's still nothing that can compete with text. Consider the space of meaningful words you can type at 100wpm, and how awkward it would be to offer a similar number of choices at a similar speed on two (or even three) dimensional display.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Depends on the language. Writing boilerplace C++ header files, which duplicate everything in the source is certainly a low-yield way to communiate with a computer. Graphics could help there; let me drag methods up and down the hierarchy and have it automatically refactor (change arguments and scope of references without me typing). Create new fields with a right-click and choose a type with a default name; drag a reference to a closure etc. Even this: if I could navigate different views on the same source e.g. without comments; without debugging prints and asserts; with references and scopes delineated. This can make it faster to find where to type. But I guess thats bandwidth out again; ok.

by delinka 14y ago

yxhuvud 14y ago

I'd suggest you learn how to touch type if you care about getting stuff out of your head fast. Just because it has a graphical interface doesn't mean the process of telling the computer what to do will be faster. The reason for this is simple - there are still just as much stuff you need to tell the computer for it to be able to do what it must.

ef4 14y ago

It would indeed be great to have some "higher bandwidth" way to interact with a program under development. And better graphical tools could clearly increase the bandwidth out from computer to programmer. But for bandwidth into the computer, there's still nothing that can compete with text. Consider the space of meaningful words you can type at 100wpm, and how awkward it would be to offer a similar number of choices at a similar speed on two (or even three) dimensional display.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago
Depends on the language. Writing boilerplace C++ header files, which duplicate everything in the source is certainly a low-yield way to communiate with a computer. Graphics could help there; let me drag methods up and down the hierarchy and have it automatically refactor (change arguments and scope of references without me typing). Create new fields with a right-click and choose a type with a default name; drag a reference to a closure etc. Even this: if I could navigate different views on the same source e.g. without comments; without debugging prints and asserts; with references and scopes delineated. This can make it faster to find where to type. But I guess thats bandwidth out again; ok.