3 ms·
Wouldn't the way to go be to have an illustrative IDE instead of an illustrative programming language? That way you would have the full power of the language, y
by mixmax 17y ago
Wouldn't the way to go be to have an illustrative IDE instead of an illustrative programming language? That way you would have the full power of the language, yet newbies would be able to get something done in it.
For instance the flow of the program could consist of a number of boxes stacked on top of each other, illustrating the flow. Each box would have one or more lines showing the input and output, and when clicked it would open up showing either the boxes it contains (funtions, nethods, code snippets etc.) or the raw code if you're at the lowest level. You can click the boxes-within-boxes until you reach the raw code at the bottom.
The user would be able to drag boxes into his program, from simple ones that just print something to the screen (Two lines: input text and output text) to complex methods and functions.
The whole thing could probly be coded up in emacs.
Note that this is just a wild idea, and there are probably tons of things I haven't thought of. It's pretty interesting though.
- akkartik 17y agoCheck out subtext: http://www.subtextual.org/subtext2.html http://www.subtextual.org/subtext2.html
- gruseom 17y agoBoxes-and-lines programming has been tried many times. It's enticing because if you look at simple examples it seems like it ought to work. The problem is that when applied to programs of any complexity the visual format quickly becomes unwieldy. There's a reason why humans represent complex information textually.
- mixmax 17y agoYou're probably right.
- mbrubeck 17y agoProgrammers who use the REPL heavily (especially in languages with good REPL support like Lisp, Python, Haskell) seem to get a lot of the benefits of "illustrative" programming, too.