6 ms·
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
by 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 agoDepends 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.