🚀 go-pugleaf

gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>How is using objective/visual programing aids to producing desired computer
>programs any different from using calculators/computers in producing
>mathematical results?  The objective/visual model insulates the 
>programmer from the tedious details of naming and initializing indexes for 
>loops, inserting loop tests, handling obscure sintax, etc.  In the same way
>with calculators you seek to alivieate the drudgery of 
>the bookeeping inherent in mathematical calculation.  Is the drudgery of
>computer language syntax is intelectualy deep?  

Maybe I'm just not up with the state of the art, but I've never seen anything
that could be called visual programming that included such crucial ideas as
naming or iteration.  I'm thinking about things like "macro" languages on the
Mac, where if they come out with a new printer driver or something, your
macro stops working, because the layout of some window changes and your
macro is defined in terms of pixel coordinates of buttons, not in terms of
named functions.

An exception to this rule is Function Machines, a BBN product that lets you
do Logo-style programming visually by hooking up meat grinders into plumbing
diagrams.  This has all the power of a real programming language, but I'm
not at all convinced that it's easier to use than old-fashioned Logo.  It does
provide very pretty visual indication of how function composition works, and
I can see it as useful for the teacher to show off at the front of the room,
but I'd hate to try to use it for anything serious, even kid-serious.

I'm trying to be open-minded about this, and I'd be happy to see a visual
programming language that was as powerful and as easy to use as Logo, but
I sure haven't seen it yet.