Slashdot Mirror


True Visual Programming

eberta writes "We are still stuck with text programming for the most part. I can think of only a few truly visual programming environments like LabView and none are really mainstream for application development. Being recently unemployed and having ample spare time, I have started a pet project to work on my own version, GIPSpin (Graphical Interface Programming System). With multithreading becoming an increasing issue in software development, I'm wondering why hasn't there been more focus on visual programming. I see so much possibility of making coding easier and handling threading issues semi-automatically by allowing the user to graphically guide the auto-threading AI. Right now it seems the industry is focused on figuring out how to get just small chunks of code auto-threaded either through hardware or compiler technology, with longer term solutions like OpenMP still text based environments."

2 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. But we *do* think visually by TuringTest · · Score: 5, Informative

    Humans think of the world using language, but we also think of the world using visual, spatial, temporal, sensorial... reasoning.

    Do ask a real psychologist, she will say that there are different kinds of think. Textual is best suited for abstract, logical reasoning. But associative thinking is often better done visually. In the Programmer's Guide to the Mind you have an interesting classification of all these.

    A programming environment should take care of all these kinds of thought, not just support the logic abstractions as they do now. A promising field of research is Programming By Example. This programming style tries to build the final program by using concrete reasoning over samples of data, instead of forcing you to think of the general, abstract procedure.

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  2. Re:INPUT DEVICES by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The mouse dates back 50 years
    The steering wheel dates back 1000s of years, yet we still use it because it is an effective interface.

    the keyboard's even older than that, and it's designed to slow down users!
    No it wasn't - that's a myth. Besides the best text entry devices which are designed to be as efficient as possible, such as Dvorak (use it myself) and chording, are only incrementally better than QWERTY - not the revolutionary jump you are looking for.

    For example, where are dual cursors?
    Dead on the research table where they belong. They never provided any significant improvement in performance, and even slowed users down due to having to stop and think about what they were doing - even after spending a significant time learning the system.

    Why can Stephen Hawkings write speeches, scientific texts and do tons of complex things with a single thumb clic?
    You can too - on a cell phone. They are smart ways to make the most of limited input capabilities; however, they are incredibly slow compared to the keyboard and mouse, and no one would choose to use one unless it was the only option available.

    With the keyboard and mouse, the bottleneck is between us and it. The idle time prooves it.
    Yet, much of the idle time is due to user thinking, not slow user input - you don't notice yourself being slow, because you are preoccupied, but you do notice when the computer slows you down even slightly. Honestly, ever since I learned to to touch-type, I have been able to type as fast as I can think, and there isn't really any reason for me to want to input text faster. Once I get a wacom tablet, I'll likely be able to say the same about the 2d/3d graphics work (err play) that I do.

    Most of the instances where I notice the computer slowing me down - making me do more work then I ought to - is due to poor design and integration of the software, not the keyboard and mouse. For example, I had to start up and entirely separate program just to spell-check this post.

    Where are the standards for new interface developpement?
    I don't know - why haven't you come up with one?