5 ms·

> visual / declarative programming ... has the appeal of being very easy to get started Does it, really? I spent the last 2 years building systems that ran off

> visual / declarative programming ... has the appeal of being very easy to get started Does it, really? I spent the last 2 years building systems that ran off of workflows (as in flowcharts), and I think now that they don't make the big hurdle (capability for abstract reasoning) any easier at all. They are fine to document and communicate things, but as input they are just flawed (except for some very very specific niches).

toby 13y ago
Yeah, I probably used the wrong terms there. I was referring not to flowcharts, but the way Excel is used as a "see-it-as-you-go" functional language.
- AdrianRossouw 13y ago
  I think excel is interesting because of it's limitations, and it's short feedback loops. all it's data is ultimately tabular, and it changes visually as you work with it. That last property is one of the reasons I think that flowcharts can work in some niches (like video and audio processing).
ericHosick 13y ago
> building systems that ran off of workflows (as in flowcharts) > but as input they are just flawed The flaw is to assume there is only one mental model that Visual Programming Languages should operate under: say only workflows for example (a mistake all VPLs I've seen have done). This is like assuming that there should only be object-oriented programming when there are other methodologies we use as programmers to form mental models such as declarative programming, functional programming, structured programming, etc. It doesn't make much sense to code out mathematical equations using flow charts. A VPL which supports multiple mental models is able to best represent behavior based on specific business domains. The right tool for the right job.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Functional VPLs have the same abstraction/scaling up problems as OO VPLs. The problem is that we (as human beings) don't know how to communicate very efficiently without our words, and visual embellishment is not directly useful.
  - ericHosick 13y ago
    > The problem is that we (as human beings) don't know how to communicate very efficiently without our words, and visual embellishment is not directly useful. To me, this sounds like someone in the literary field of the arts telling an artist or musician that those fields of the arts are not directly useful. Music and art? Those visual (and aural) embellishments are not directly useful. There was a great HN post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7543691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7543691) on visually stunning math concepts. What you are implying is that coding out a mathematical equation as opposed to representing it using actual equations (http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/036/119/original/minimal-surface.jpg?1359485766 http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/036/119/original/minim...) is a visual embellishment that is not directly useful? > Functional VPLs have the same abstraction/scaling up problems as OO VPLs. This could be a problem with VPLs or it could be a sign of some root cause problem(s) with how we code today. Perhaps, there are better programming abstractions/methodologies that work equally well as words (source code) and as VPLs.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      I'm all for art and music, but can you converse with it? They obviously communicate something that is quite different than "buy eggs on your way home from work." Could you communicate this to your SO without using words, using a picture or music? There is a good reason why pictionary is a challenging game. And just as well, artists and musicians are probably not very interested in communicating such utilitarian trivialities through the artifacts they create. Art is not meant to be efficiently communicative, but to influence us in other, perhaps deeper, ways. > This could be a problem with VPLs or it could be a sign of some root cause problem(s) with how we code today. Perhaps, there are better programming abstractions/methodologies that work equally well as words (source code) and as VPLs. The language center of our brains evolved 50-100 thousands of years ago, which eventually led us to technology and civilization (things really pick up after we discovered writing at about 10kya). The reason we use words for programming is that we are biologically evolved for that. Are you seriously suggesting that there might be a better way for us to communicate and express ourselves concisely?

toby 13y ago

Yeah, I probably used the wrong terms there. I was referring not to flowcharts, but the way Excel is used as a "see-it-as-you-go" functional language.

AdrianRossouw 13y ago
I think excel is interesting because of it's limitations, and it's short feedback loops. all it's data is ultimately tabular, and it changes visually as you work with it. That last property is one of the reasons I think that flowcharts can work in some niches (like video and audio processing).

ericHosick 13y ago

> building systems that ran off of workflows (as in flowcharts) > but as input they are just flawed The flaw is to assume there is only one mental model that Visual Programming Languages should operate under: say only workflows for example (a mistake all VPLs I've seen have done). This is like assuming that there should only be object-oriented programming when there are other methodologies we use as programmers to form mental models such as declarative programming, functional programming, structured programming, etc. It doesn't make much sense to code out mathematical equations using flow charts. A VPL which supports multiple mental models is able to best represent behavior based on specific business domains. The right tool for the right job.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Functional VPLs have the same abstraction/scaling up problems as OO VPLs. The problem is that we (as human beings) don't know how to communicate very efficiently without our words, and visual embellishment is not directly useful.
- ericHosick 13y ago
  > The problem is that we (as human beings) don't know how to communicate very efficiently without our words, and visual embellishment is not directly useful. To me, this sounds like someone in the literary field of the arts telling an artist or musician that those fields of the arts are not directly useful. Music and art? Those visual (and aural) embellishments are not directly useful. There was a great HN post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7543691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7543691) on visually stunning math concepts. What you are implying is that coding out a mathematical equation as opposed to representing it using actual equations (http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/036/119/original/minimal-surface.jpg?1359485766 http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/036/119/original/minim...) is a visual embellishment that is not directly useful? > Functional VPLs have the same abstraction/scaling up problems as OO VPLs. This could be a problem with VPLs or it could be a sign of some root cause problem(s) with how we code today. Perhaps, there are better programming abstractions/methodologies that work equally well as words (source code) and as VPLs.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    I'm all for art and music, but can you converse with it? They obviously communicate something that is quite different than "buy eggs on your way home from work." Could you communicate this to your SO without using words, using a picture or music? There is a good reason why pictionary is a challenging game. And just as well, artists and musicians are probably not very interested in communicating such utilitarian trivialities through the artifacts they create. Art is not meant to be efficiently communicative, but to influence us in other, perhaps deeper, ways. > This could be a problem with VPLs or it could be a sign of some root cause problem(s) with how we code today. Perhaps, there are better programming abstractions/methodologies that work equally well as words (source code) and as VPLs. The language center of our brains evolved 50-100 thousands of years ago, which eventually led us to technology and civilization (things really pick up after we discovered writing at about 10kya). The reason we use words for programming is that we are biologically evolved for that. Are you seriously suggesting that there might be a better way for us to communicate and express ourselves concisely?