4 ms·

Forgive my ignorance - IANAP. Why can't/don't we have more tools along the lines of App Inventor [1] that provide a visual structure for programming? The vast

Forgive my ignorance - IANAP. Why can't/don't we have more tools along the lines of App Inventor [1] that provide a visual structure for programming? The vast majority of time I've spent writing anything has been spent struggling with specific syntax, not any particular function of the code. Coding feels like trying to manipulate a clear model that exists in the machine by spelling my intentions out one letter at a time while peering through a straw. 1: http://appinventor.mit.edu/ http://appinventor.mit.edu/

kbenson 14y ago
Possibly because while we have a rich ecosystem of tools for dealing with text in myriad form and ways, and have conditioned ourselves over the years on how to read text in a general form, I don't think the same can be said for more graphical representations of programs. While a representation that uses graphical cues in lieu of textual ones may be easier to learn and understand initially, the disadvantage of not being able to use the thousands of utilities for searching, refactoring examining code are then less useful, if not entirely useless. P.S. In a way, idiomatic structure to code puts a graphical representation on the textual form. Programmers learn to recognize this. Python goes as far as to enforce it.
- incision 14y ago
  >Possibly because while we have a rich ecosystem of tools for dealing with text in myriad form and ways, and have conditioned ourselves over the years on how to read text in a general form, I don't think the same can be said for more graphical representations of programs. Yes, I completely agree. To go off on a bit of a tangent, I wonder if it's just a matter of the right technology and implementation? Is there an analog to the rise of touch interfaces waiting to happen in the way we record, manipulate and relay information? >While a representation that uses graphical cues in lieu of textual ones may be easier to learn and understand initially, the disadvantage of not being able to use the thousands of utilities for searching, refactoring examining code are then less useful, if not entirely useless. That's a good point. I was thinking of this purely from the standpoint of creating as an individual, not maintaining or sharing. >P.S. In a way, idiomatic structure to code puts a graphical representation on the textual form. Programmers learn to recognize this. Python goes as far as to enforce it. Certainly, learning that word (idiomatic) was a boon to my understanding of code.
andrewljohnson 14y ago
It sounds to me like you never got over the hump. At some point, there is an inflection point where you simply become fluent in the syntax of a language, and the relationships between your modules takes shape in your head. Someday, I do think there will be tools that let non-programmers create things that only programmers can create today, but by that time, I think there will also be _other_ tools that let the "real" programmers still do the most powerful stuff. Maybe no typing though.
Finster 14y ago
Time spent wrangling syntax goes down with time, dependent on language. With experience, coding does start to feel more like painting a picture. You spend less time worrying about getting the brush strokes just so, but you still have to apply each and every single brush stroke to get the painting you want.
qu4z-2 14y ago
When you've spent more time programming the feeling reverses, and visual structures become tedious. Because you know exactly what you want, and finding it in a visual environment becomes tedious. It's like smileys. In the beginning it may be nice to have a pop-up "insert smiley" list, but in the end it's easier just to type >:-O or whatever you're trying to convey than find it in a list. Admittedly the more verbose programming languages do end up being fairly IDE-dependent, so they get a lot closer to the visual programming you talk about. See also: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/gui-programmer.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/gui-programmer.h... DISCLAIMER: I haven't used AppInventor

kbenson 14y ago

Possibly because while we have a rich ecosystem of tools for dealing with text in myriad form and ways, and have conditioned ourselves over the years on how to read text in a general form, I don't think the same can be said for more graphical representations of programs. While a representation that uses graphical cues in lieu of textual ones may be easier to learn and understand initially, the disadvantage of not being able to use the thousands of utilities for searching, refactoring examining code are then less useful, if not entirely useless. P.S. In a way, idiomatic structure to code puts a graphical representation on the textual form. Programmers learn to recognize this. Python goes as far as to enforce it.

incision 14y ago
>Possibly because while we have a rich ecosystem of tools for dealing with text in myriad form and ways, and have conditioned ourselves over the years on how to read text in a general form, I don't think the same can be said for more graphical representations of programs. Yes, I completely agree. To go off on a bit of a tangent, I wonder if it's just a matter of the right technology and implementation? Is there an analog to the rise of touch interfaces waiting to happen in the way we record, manipulate and relay information? >While a representation that uses graphical cues in lieu of textual ones may be easier to learn and understand initially, the disadvantage of not being able to use the thousands of utilities for searching, refactoring examining code are then less useful, if not entirely useless. That's a good point. I was thinking of this purely from the standpoint of creating as an individual, not maintaining or sharing. >P.S. In a way, idiomatic structure to code puts a graphical representation on the textual form. Programmers learn to recognize this. Python goes as far as to enforce it. Certainly, learning that word (idiomatic) was a boon to my understanding of code.

andrewljohnson 14y ago

It sounds to me like you never got over the hump. At some point, there is an inflection point where you simply become fluent in the syntax of a language, and the relationships between your modules takes shape in your head. Someday, I do think there will be tools that let non-programmers create things that only programmers can create today, but by that time, I think there will also be _other_ tools that let the "real" programmers still do the most powerful stuff. Maybe no typing though.

Finster 14y ago

Time spent wrangling syntax goes down with time, dependent on language. With experience, coding does start to feel more like painting a picture. You spend less time worrying about getting the brush strokes just so, but you still have to apply each and every single brush stroke to get the painting you want.

qu4z-2 14y ago

When you've spent more time programming the feeling reverses, and visual structures become tedious. Because you know exactly what you want, and finding it in a visual environment becomes tedious. It's like smileys. In the beginning it may be nice to have a pop-up "insert smiley" list, but in the end it's easier just to type >:-O or whatever you're trying to convey than find it in a list. Admittedly the more verbose programming languages do end up being fairly IDE-dependent, so they get a lot closer to the visual programming you talk about. See also: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/gui-programmer.html http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/gui-programmer.h... DISCLAIMER: I haven't used AppInventor