Live data from Hacker News

We need visual programming. No, not like that

blog.sbensu.com

291–300 of 505 posts

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#291
> I have never seen any of these visual programming systems > even be mentioned while trying to solve problems.

I'd say that's because drawing diagrams, especially in a non-fugly way, requires concentration on the action of drawing, and is slow, whilst typing requires almost no concentration, nor even looking at the keyboard, so it's much faster, even if less pretty.

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#293
I am not sure that "We need visual programming". Just a couple of arguments against: visual programming struggles with scalability, introduces performance overhead, and lacks the flexibility of text-based programming. For me is a no-no. Maybe it helps beginners but for me it's just an additional layer of (unnecessary) complexity. The purpose of software engineering is to control complexity, not to create it.

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I totally agree with you, I'm looking for a counter example. The only one which comes to my mind, is non trivial and quite fast for js/ts is this : https://github.com/tsoding/raycasting An implementation of raycast in a 2D canvas The dev tried to implement hot reloading, and you can see all the process there https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpM-Dvs8t0VZ08cYW6yqN... Even though I didn't measured the loadin…

Even the simplest type inference can cause typescript to stall for minutes. The problem is in the inference. That problem goes away when you're actually specifying types. Tooling should add typing automatically (not implicitly)

Minutes? There’s no way you’ve seen a minutes-long stall caused by TypeScript inference..I need to see some evidence on this one

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#295

I am not sure that "We need visual programming". Just a couple of arguments against: visual programming struggles with scalability, introduces performance overhead, and lacks the flexibility of text-based programming. For me is a no-no. Maybe it helps beginners but for me it's just an additional layer of (unnecessary) complexity. The purpose of software engineering is to control complexity, not to create it.

I think the headline is talking about you...:)

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#296

Where is the example of the “ very nice visual programming language” he gave from?

It looks like this: https://unit.software/ Was on HN recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40900029

It's no longer there - site is unreachable. There's nothing saved on archive.org either.

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#297

Far more important is instant feedback and that’s getting worse all the time: with lisp, smalltalk, Delphi, forth things were instant. With typescript or rust etc, if the project is larger than hello world, the feedback is well, far from instant. Bret victor talked about feedback, not necessarily visual programming and for some reason we are making things worse instead of better. When I show a Common Lisp dev session…

I’ve got a 500 file, 100k sloc typescript project with instant feedback which makes me wonder: what is a large project?

Are most people somehow working on giant repos?

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#298

I am not sure that "We need visual programming". Just a couple of arguments against: visual programming struggles with scalability, introduces performance overhead, and lacks the flexibility of text-based programming. For me is a no-no. Maybe it helps beginners but for me it's just an additional layer of (unnecessary) complexity. The purpose of software engineering is to control complexity, not to create it.

No, not like that.

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#299
Merging source code line by line is a solved problem. Merging visual code/graphs/graphics is often simply impossible. Also versioning and simply showing diffs become difficult problems with visual programming. That is why visual programming will never scale beyond small toy projects maintained by a single developer.

That said, I agree that visualising your code base might give additional insights. However that is not visual programming, that is code visualisation.

Re: We need visual programming. No, not like that

#300
post #299

Merging source code line by line is a solved problem. Merging visual code/graphs/graphics is often simply impossible. Also versioning and simply showing diffs become difficult problems with visual programming. That is why visual programming will never scale beyond small toy projects maintained by a single developer. That said, I agree that visualising your code base might give additional insights. However that is not…

Maybe it's not impossible but just quite difficult? I use Houdini 'Vops' sometimes and I could imagine a tricked-up diff could be made for it (especially since it translates to vex) but you're certainly right that it's a hard problem in general!
Post reply on HN