🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <240@comp.lancs.ac.uk> de@comp.lancs.ac.uk (David England) writes:
>In article <473@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>>In article <316@euroies.UUCP> shepherd@euroies.UUCP (Roger Shepherd INMOS) writes:
>>>In article <438@ccird1.UUCP> Rex Ballard writes:
>>>> All High level languages do is attempt to organize the
>>>> etc
>>>
>>>I disagree with view. A high level language should be more than a glorified
>>>macro assembler.
>>>etc
>>
>>In a sense, I agree with you.  What you're describing is the human->compiler
>>side of what a language should be.  I am describing what the compiler->machine
>>side should be.
>>
>... and as far as the human->compiler side of things is concerned the days
>of languages are numbered. Visual programming and spatial data management
>are the "languages" of the future. In five years time there should be no
>net.lang* :-). If this was a bit mapped screen I would draw this article
>as a vt100 icon being thrown into a trash can icon :-).
>-- 

Good point Dave, I hope you are right, that the era of "text oriented"
systems is on the way out.  What information do people have on
visual programming?  What effects will this have on archetecture?
I have seen a few "flow chart" languages, and yes, they do look promising.
I would hope that "structure chart" languages as well as "graphic libraries"
will also begin to evolve.

Of course in terms of "system archetecture" the intellegent graphics "terminal"
combined with the high power "file server" opens some very interesting
opportuntites in parallel programming as well.

P.S.  I set the "follow-up" to net.lang because their is probably more
info there.