🚀 go-pugleaf

I'm having a slight problem with the metaphor here -- a visual
situation is highly parallel and essentially instantaneous or static.
A procedure that processes anything exists in time. The only area
of overlap with the visual seems to be in terms of perceived motion
within the visual field. Thus, a visual programming language must
be either verbal (describing motion within the visual field) or 
kinesthetic (physically moving something within the visual field).
(A third possibility is changing the field, but that seems verbal
or kinesthetic also.)

This seems to lead to three types of models:

1. Something like the Mac interface of the HP NewWave program where a
file is printed by clicking on its folder and moved to the printer icon,
or a file is deleted by clicking on its folder and moving it to the
waste basket.

2. A verbal procedural language with directives for camera control (truck,
tilt, pan, zoom, crop, etc.) and for object manipulation (select, move,
etc.). This corresponds to most flight simulators and to some virtual
reality systems.

3. Pattern recognition systems that classify objects, but are essentially
passive. (Any action is the result of the classficiation, not the
recognition system.) Neural nets are the most common example.

All of these types of systems exist. Yet I get the impression from this
discussion that someone wants a new metaphor that is more related to
visual processing, and thinks that this will result in a "break through"
in programming or processing technology. I don't understand what else 
visual processing involves that is not included in one of these
existing systems.

Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
	     and do not represent nor in any way imply
	     of any other sane person and especially not
	     employer.
"My reply is that such pre-theoretical conceptual essences are often
riddled with deep ambiguity and internal incoherence, despite strong
convictions people have that they know what they mean." -- Aaron Sloman