Google Blockly — a Language With a Difference

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Blockly — a Language With a Difference

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @06:20AM from the less-than-elegant-language-names dept.

mikejuk writes "There are aspects of Google that increasingly don't make sense. First they dump App Inventor — a graphical language for Android apps — in a fit of spring cleaning and closures — and now they have launched another Scratch-like graphical language, Blockly. However Blockly is different. It works like Scratch or App inventor but it is written in JavaScript. This means it can be included in any web page or web app very easily. This, in turn, means that it can be used for education, getting people to learn to program, or as an easy-to-use script generator for the app. The FAQ gives the example of automating GMail filters and management. The additional difference is that Blockly can compile its programs to JavaScript, Dart or Python so you can take the script and develop it further. This is a really good idea. As long as Google doesn't throw this one out in a fit of reorganization and spring cleaning, it's a welcome new language."

141 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

reinventing the wheel by Thud457 · 2012-06-12 06:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought Minecraft had comprehensively solved the problem of creating a Turing-complete graphical programming language. It's redstone all the way down.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:reinventing the wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Dwarf Fortress did it better in my opinion. Using fluids you can construct literal logic gates!
2. Re:reinventing the wheel by steelfood · 2012-06-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Redstone is great, but it simulates digital circuits. Programming languages exist at a high abstraction. You can certainly create programming "units" in Minecraft, but to actually make it do useful work requires a lot of time and room.
  Some mods and add-ons address the tediousness, but at best, it goes from circuit design to coding in assembly. Assembly isn't exactly what you'd learn to write code with.
  Minecraft is probably more suited for the EE or MicroE novice who's learnnig circuit layout and design. With the mods, it's more for CompE who's into embedded systems and real time programming.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
3. Re:reinventing the wheel by Trilkin · 2012-06-12 07:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You know you can run a webserver and access it locally, right? You don't need (and in fact, it's best if there ISN'T) external access to a webserver you're learning to code on.
  
  --
  Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
4. Re:reinventing the wheel by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-06-12 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  File: Open File...
  You're welcome.
5. Re:reinventing the wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think we need more coders of the AC's calibre.
6. Re:reinventing the wheel by Dragonslicer · 2012-06-12 07:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You don't need a web server at all for JavaScript.
7. Re:reinventing the wheel by Georules · 2012-06-12 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  You honestly could not be more wrong.
8. Re:reinventing the wheel by Georules · 2012-06-12 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  I apologize,
  
  You honestly could not be more wrong.
  was meant to be in reply to:
  
  You know you can run a webserver and access it locally, right? You don't need (and in fact, it's best if there ISN'T) external access to a webserver you're learning to code on
9. Re:reinventing the wheel by Georules · 2012-06-12 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Damn again, I am losing it today. It was meant to be in reply to:
  
  JavaScript is useless for learning to program. You have to run your own web server, and ISPs don't allow that.
  I'll shutup now. Please downvote me.
10. Re:reinventing the wheel by Arancaytar · 2012-06-12 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Every single thing you just said is wrong.
  In particular, ISPs have nothing to do with running a webserver on your computer; the most they can do is prevent others from accessing it. Secondly, Javascript has nothing to do with webservers.
  (For the record, PHP, which does run on webservers, doesn't require a webserver either.)
11. Re:reinventing the wheel by Joce640k · 2012-06-12 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Did you know you can type "file:" instead of "http:" in a URL...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
12. Re:reinventing the wheel by Trilkin · 2012-06-13 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  You don't, but it definitely helps if you're designing something that's going to be public-facing.
  
  --
  Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
Schizophrenia is a disease. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are things Google does that don't make sense, such as X and Y. Now they've done Z that makes sense of X and Y. I sure hope they don't do to Z what they did with X and Y!
Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by MrEricSir · 2012-06-12 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

When you bring a product to market, your users just don't expect it to suddenly go away and be replaced by something else a year down the road.
If you violate this expectation too many times, people will stop paying attention. For this reason, "maintenance mode" is one of the most overlooked -- yet most important -- parts of the product lifecycle.
Look Google, yeah, we get it: you like inventing stuff. Great. But here's the thing -- people want to use the products you've invented. We'd rather have you support your existing products than throw them away and spend a year or two developing a replacement. Yes, there's a cost to doing this. But if you care about the long term, you'll put in the extra effort.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by MozeeToby · 2012-06-12 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most of the things they trash have userbases measured in the hundreds. It's just not worth it financially to put money into maintaining something that has a few thousand users even if it does cost them some goodwill to the project. Kill it, move on to the next thing and if its an area that you really want to make something happen in try again with a different approach. Staying static with what can only be described as a failed approach isn't going to win you any profit.
2. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  These things are done on employees' 20% time.
  Also, is there any evidence whatsoever that these "graphical" languages are easier for people to learn? Blocky is barely more graphical than a syntax highlighting editor.
3. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by SJHillman · 2012-06-12 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Aren't pretty much all of the projects they trashed free to use? I could see your argument holding a lot more water if it was a pay service or some kind of contract, but what Google's doing is trying a whole bunch of stuff. If it doesn't catch on, then why should they pay to maintain it if no one is paying them to use it?
4. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You should totally post this on Google Wave.
5. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Look Google, yeah, we get it: you like inventing stuff. Great. But here's the thing -- people want to use the products you've invented. We'd rather have you support your existing products than throw them away and spend a year or two developing a replacement. Yes, there's a cost to doing this. But if you care about the long term, you'll put in the extra effort.
  That doesn't sound very Agile(tm). It's over the waterfall for you, heretic!
6. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2012-06-12 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  Free as in beer is often the least of the resources invested. My time and energy are also limited, I'd like to invest them wisely, and not into something that will disappear, leaving me with nothing.
7. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by crazyjj · 2012-06-12 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Google: Really good at launching. Really good at hyping.
  Maintenance, upgrade, and support? Not so much.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
8. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Many of the projects Google kills are ones that I only hear about when Slashdot announces they've been killed. That's a failure on Google's part unrelated to the people responsible for making the project. You can't call a project a failure in popularity if it never was given a legitimate chance.
  
  Even though these killed projects have very few users, I hear about so damn many projects of Google's that get killed that I don't wouldn't want to risk relying on them to maintain anything beyond mail. Why bother investing your time in a new Google service when it's probably going to be killed soon anyways? You're going to end up shit out of luck with wasted effort, and you knew it was coming before you even started.
9. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Sponge+Bath · 2012-06-12 06:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If you violate this expectation too many times, people will stop paying attention.
  This very true line made me think of network executives and programming *cough* Firefly *cough* Caprica.
10. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by timeOday · 2012-06-12 07:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  When you bring a product to market, your users just don't expect it to suddenly go away and be replaced by something else a year down the road.
  
  Just keep in mind how many defunct companies are, in retrospect, faulted for refusing to sacrifice their sacred cow / cannibalize their existing business / streamline their offerings. Keep in mind how many slashdotters revile Intel for maintaining x86, and Microsoft for not being innovative enough, and for feature creep. I realize you did address that a little bit in your post, but still I don't think people realize what "being willing to fail" actually means in practice. It means you often incur losses associated with failure, including a hit to your credibility.
11. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  You would think Google would be batter at advertising their projects. I guess it's like the old saying about a good shoemaker's children always being barefoot.
12. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by MrEricSir · 2012-06-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Trying a whole bunch of stuff is great -- in a closed beta. Once you open it up to the world it's a different story because the expectations are different.
  I might also add that nobody pays to use Google Search, Google Maps, etc. So in that respect, it's no different than App Creator, Code Search, Wave, Meebo, or any of the other products they've killed.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
13. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by jythie · 2012-06-12 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  Thing is, such killing of projects has effects outside the immediate userbase. Google is building a reputation for putting together projects, getting users, and killing it. If this pattern continues people are going to become increasingly reluctant to invest time/energy into things Google back because the risk of it being shut down feels too high. So there is a potential PR problem here, though I do not think we have reached it given the amount of goodwill they have through other things.
14. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually this launch directly contradicts Page's "more wood behind fewer arrows" mandate, and that's a good thing. What happens when you let bureaucracy get in the way is that you end up with idiots like Vic Gundotra making all the wrong choices and ignoring the 'put users first' mantra.
  --
  Sundar Pichai is the utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shut down of Google's Atlanta office.
15. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Au contraire. You do pay, just not with money. Install noscript and Ghostery and you'll realize that Google is pretty much omnipresent in the web.
16. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  If you are saying Caprica should never have been given a green light, then I'm with you. Caprica sucked.
17. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly this is why Google's employment style does not work for most things, including most of their products. Most products have a large amount of fairly boring work involved in polishing, maintaining, fixing, and generally making products polished and complete both at launch and in the long term. Google chooses to employ a bunch of people and not really "make" anybody do anything in the traditional employment sense. Bully for them, and I hear a lot of their engineers are really happy to work on the shiny things that they do, but it makes their products fairly less usable for the rest of us, and will prevent them from getting adopted.
  Certain areas of the system they managed to lock down and get people to spend time doing the drudge work (search/Android/Chrome, and G+ is fairly nice) but most of their other projects are ridiculously feature-light for having existed for years. GMail hasn't had a major feature update in years, and Docs is a joke in terms of feature coverage.
18. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by serviscope_minor · 2012-06-12 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Maintenance, upgrade, and support? Not so much.
  Upgrade? Are you sure? google are always upgrading stuff.
  All the time.
  I, personally love the upgrade to google maps where all the country names are in the country's language an script. It's *so* cool. There's unicode all over the place. It's the coolest thing ever. Really. And so culturally sensitive and aware. It's a good job I can read all the latin script languages, Greek, Farsi, Arabic, Thai, Cyrillic (Russian and Georgian), Ethopian, Japanese and Chinese otherwise I wouldn't be able to make head nor tail of the country and city names.
  Also, they've upgraded google groups so it doesn't display that annoying pane on the left that tells you where in the thread you are in a tree view.
  I really don't know what you're complaining about. Google always upgrade.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
19. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by nurb432 · 2012-06-12 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not just "network execs", but those bastards at 'syfy'. .
  Don't forget Farscape, one of the first causalities by those idiots, and the sign of things to come.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
20. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is, such killing of projects has effects outside the immediate userbase. Google is building a reputation for putting together projects, not getting any significant number of users, and killing it.
21. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by the+agent+man · 2012-06-12 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  There is next to no real evidence. Indeed, these puzzle piece programming languages are almost 30 years old, e.g., ancient paper.The puzzle piece idea back then did not do the trick. Why should it now?
  Of course, syntax is only a very small part of the problem. Semantics is the real challenge. The idea that syntax alone makes programming simple would be like saying "an English sentence needs to have a noun and a verb [that is the syntax]" and then suggesting "now that you know the syntax write a best selling novel"
22. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by bmcage · 2012-06-12 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Farscape? I have all the seasons of that, and the movies. Surely you can't expect things to go on forever?
23. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by tehcyder · 2012-06-12 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  Google is a prime example of why you should have marketers, accountants and lawyers running big companies, and not geeks.
  
  Geeks like making geeky stuff for other geeks, which is fine in itself, but not a basis for a publicly owned company with shares held by non-geeky investors.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
24. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by ozmanjusri · 2012-06-13 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  it's no different than App Creator
  App inventor wasn't killed.
  It was gifted to MIT. You can use it here: http://www.appinventor.mit.edu/
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
25. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by mitzampt · 2012-06-13 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well personally I didn't enjoy the lot of scifi series that ended abruptly and had to be completed with a movie... Never mind that before that they were pushed aside, using some obscure measuring of popularity and priorities. With the exception of Serenity, I hated all those movies for their scripts.
  
  --
  uhm...
26. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by PGC · 2012-06-13 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Marketers, lawyers and accountants have no business running any companies. They are support functions, no more, no less.
  
  --
  The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
27. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by nurb432 · 2012-06-13 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Forever, no. But when its making money for them i don't expect them to cut it off mid-story line and at least let them wind the series up if it is going to go away.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
28. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by asdf7890 · 2012-06-13 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC the writers planned for one more season, and more-or-less been told they were going to get it hence ending S4 the way they did. When it looked like they might not get it, they instead asked for a "half" season but didn't even get that. The only reason the mini-series that closed it off happened at all was fan outcry. The reason that mini series seems so rushed in many places, good though it still managed to be, is because it *was* rushed: it tried to close in 2x90 mins the lose ends the half-series would have in 10x40 mins - even allowing for the half-season containing plenty of fluff and some of those 40 minutes each episode being taken up by "previously on Farscape", that was a tight squeeze.
  
  The argument here isn't that is should have gone on for ever, but that is should have been given a better end.
29. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by benhattman · 2012-06-14 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  You would prefer that Google support every little project for perpetuity?
  It's funny to me that /. can be so libertarian and yet so completely misunderstand why unsuccessful projects must be killed. Google tries a lot of stuff out. Most of it will not make the cut. The SMARTEST thing they can do is give each project a chance to catch hold and if it fails then stop dumping resources into it.
  Granted, they might do a better job of announcing things prior to killing them. Also, in most cases they should simply release the project to the community rather than kill it. Of course, releasing isn't always an option. Especially if the project runs on a server somewhere and has deep ties into proprietary technology that you don't want to release.
30. Re:Tired of Google's lack of product maintenance by benhattman · 2012-06-14 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  This.
Instead of relying on Google..... by xzvf · 2012-06-12 06:33 · Score: 1

Google can start something like this, but they should reach out to individuals, Universities and other corporations that may be interested, form a foundation, and let it be free as in freedom. If it is something interesting and people want to use it, more people will contribute effort to growing and maintaining the environment. If Google finds it useful, then Google can contribute money or time to the foundation and leverage the efforts of everyone else involved. In the long run it is better for Google and for people using it.
1. Re:Instead of relying on Google..... by BenLeeImp · 2012-06-12 08:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Its released under an Apache license. Anyone can run with it if they want to.
At the risk of sounding elitist... by mblase · 2012-06-12 06:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

..."building an app graphically" is to "learning programming" what "using a calculator" is to "learning math." You've replaced an actual understanding of the underlying process with a bunch of buttons to be punched.
It's only still "programming" if you have the knowledge to do it without the tools, but not the time.
1. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Iniamyen · 2012-06-12 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think the working definition of "programming" has changed over time. Or at least, there has been the emergence of a new type of programming... "system programming." There is a lot of lower-level stuff that is now taken for granted.
2. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  I see you've never used an APL keyboard before.
3. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Lumpy · 2012-06-12 06:43 · Score: 3
  
  Says the elitist. The demo of a maze solver is a perfect example of teaching logic programming.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
4. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by SJHillman · 2012-06-12 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard that before...
  http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/demotivational-posters-th-grade.jpg
5. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by arose · 2012-06-12 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So how fluent exactly are you in machine language these days? Wouldn't want to rely on assembler or anything...
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
6. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  And further, we're told "it's a GREAT WAY to teach." We have plenty of teaching languages already. The problem isn't that we need "a language that will make people learn to program," the problem is simply that lots of people don't give a shit about programming, because it's either too hard, or there's very little perceived payoff.
  Building a javascript program is cool. But you can fucking build in javascript today. It's not that hard - pick up a book. The problem (insofar as one exists, vis a vis "teaching programming") is one of student motivation, not one of inadequate teaching tools.
7. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Baloroth · 2012-06-12 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Not at all. There are two sides to mathematics: the theoretical side, and the practical side. The theoretician would agree completely with what you say: if you can only use the calculator and don't know the underlying process, you aren't doing math.
  The practical side disagrees. If you don't need to have an understanding of the underlying principles to do the problem, there is no point to learn it. The thing is, except for a fairly small group of people, programming is a strictly practical function. If you can accomplish what you need to, there is absolutely no point in having an understanding of the underlying process, just as people do not need to understand the chemistry of gasoline combustion or even engine design to drive a car.
  "Programming" is the process of writing an automated process on a computer to solve a particular problem. How you do so, and how much you understand what you are doing, is absolutely irrelevant to that end. Granted, a deeper understanding is often necessary, but not always and not for everyone. In those cases, these kinds of languages are useful.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
8. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-12 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you can accomplish what you need to, there is absolutely no point in having an understanding of the underlying process
  *shudders* I hate to actually have to watch as civilization collapses...
9. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Except that you cannot actually write a maze solver in the provided demo. Go ahead and try to write a general purpose maze solver there. You need some form of variable to do it.
10. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, yeah.
  
  I just showed my daughter the maze demo.
  
  Forward 1, Right 1, Forward 2, Left 1, etc, etc, - it reminded me of my school days with the turtle and Logo. It's a manual list of commands and no fun after the first time.
  
  Then I said something like:
  
  Move forward until wall ahead
  if No Wall On Right then Turn Right
  Turn Left
  
  And we put the jigsaw pieces together and the maze was solved.
  
  How's that not programming? Does it matter if I typed the code in words or fitted jigsaw piece? It has statements and loops, and you can do so much with those. Once you know about all the types of loops and breaks in one language, using them in another is simple.
  
  No one's asking you to give up your Emacs. Think of the mini-nerds.
11. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by steelfood · 2012-06-12 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  Your analogy doesn't quite work. Calculators solve math problems. Besides addition and subtraction, a calculator trivializes the work needed to arrive at the solution. It gives you the solution, without you needing to perform any of the in-between steps.
  Programming is not a math problem. Computer science is applied mathematics, but even that is not a math problem. Computer science is more like fitting the right mathematics to the problem to arrive at a solution. But programming isn't computer science either.
  Programming is far more abstract (as I mentioned above). It exists on a completely different level. The mathematical thinking necessary to solve math problems is needed to write programs, but being able to methodically solve problems is where the similarities end.
  But I digress. The goal of this new "language" is to make programming easier from both production and consumption standpoints by making it friendlier to the eye. It does not solve your programming problems for you the way a calculator will solve math problems. You still have to write the algorithms yourself. It's just easier to figure out than say, figuring out the syntax of C or Perl.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
12. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  An example of the left hand rule for mazes (you can reverse directions and it will still work)
  repeat(forever) {
  if (!wall(to the left)) {
  turn(left)
  move(forward)
  }
  else if (!wall(ahead)) {
  move(forward)
  }
  else {
  turn(right)
  }
  }
13. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Baloroth · 2012-06-12 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I said "from the practical side", i.e. as someone interesting in making a program that works, rather than in designing a programming language or taking on a project for fun. Obviously, there is a tremendous value in knowing the underlying mechanics, ideally all the way down to the bare metal. But if all you need to do is create something that performs a function, that understanding adds little in value. My example with the car was, I thought, a pretty good illustration: obviously, someone needs to know how to build a car. The person driving it, though, doesn't, and I would argue that forcing them to understand the design just to drive it is counter-productive. Specialization is a highly useful tool in modern society, so the more people can perform practical functions outside their field of expertise (where a theoretical knowledge actually is important, at least usually), e.g. a non-techie writing a fairly simple program, the better society can function.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
14. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  Graphical version, but with the man walking backwards:
  http://i.imgur.com/wgNdy.png
15. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by gtbritishskull · 2012-06-12 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  I think that is the point. It takes a lot of motivation to say "I am going to learn assembly" and then to go buy a book and start coding in assembly. It takes a lot less motivation to learn javascript (or probably Blockly). It is a lot quicker and easier to get a program to DO SOMETHING in javascript than in assembly. So, it is easier for someone (like a kid) to pick up quickly and see if they enjoy it. Once they realize they enjoy it (usually after making their first program), they can delve into it deeper. Most people would probably give up on assembly before they even got "Hello World" printed out. And I assume that it is easier to get started in Blockly than in javascript. The advantage there, is that Blockly is built on javascript, so when someone wants to delve in deeper (or wants their program to do something that Blockly doesn't do) they can augment their already made program with javascript. More tools (languages) are better. It means that people can use the tool that works best for them, instead of having to use the one tool that some group of people decided is "the best way of doing it".
16. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by void* · 2012-06-12 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Repeat forever
  do
  turn left
  if wall ahead
  then turn right
  else move forward
  if wall ahead
  then turn right
  else move forward
  
  --
  
  Code or be coded.
17. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  That only works if your maze has contiguous walls, though.If it doesn't you just go round in circles :-(
18. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by gtbritishskull · 2012-06-12 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That is actually how civilization advances. People specialize. I drive to work every day. I use a car (a tool) that was created by people who have spent most of their career becoming better, through education and experience, at making that tool (the car) better. It makes me A LOT more efficient at my job because I can drive 20min each way instead of walking for 3 hours each way. I, on the other hand, make other tools (computer programs) that they can use in their everyday life to be more efficient. An example of this analogy is g-code. The car specialist can quickly mill out a part to test on a CNC machine without having to do it by hand and without worrying about how the processor interprets the code, or how the mechanical linkages of the mill work, or the energy characteristics of the milling motors. Because he is using a tool, not trying to understand the underlying process.
19. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  You are confused about what Scratch and Blocky are. Scratch and Blocky are real programming.
  I am guessing that you have tried many "graphical application builder" toolkits in the past, like the VB6 form builder or drag-and-drop HTML designers. And, you quickly decided that those tools were not real programming. You are right about that. You might have even used some of those primitive blocks that let you plug together document workflow flowcharts or create simple image filters. I'll agree that those really aren't programming either.
  But that's not what Scratch and Blocky are. They're not graphical form builders, or crippled flowcharting tools. If you tried them, you'd quickly discover that they are real programming languages, using real programming constructs, designed to teach real programming to ten year old kids. You are dragging-and-dropping constructs onto a canvas, but you're dragging things like if-then-else blocks, while-loops, expressions, variable assignment, and the rest. These things don't make programming possible by delivering a crippled model of programming. These things make programming possible by providing a robust, full featured editor that allows kids to write real programs in a real language without worrying about typos and syntax errors.
  If you ever tried these things, you'd be downright amazed by them. They are incredible. About the only people who aren't impressed by them are relatively low-skilled programmers who are confused about what programming is, and imagine that programming is better taught when the syntax gets in the way.
20. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure where you got the machine language from but... I always tell people "anybody can learn to program in 7 days, but to learn to write software that is relatively bug-free, usable, and maintainable, that takes several years of study + several years of field experience." I think that's what the GP meant too.
  Another analogy, it doesn't matter whether you use a regular hammer and handsaw or you use laser-guided power tools, if you don't understand the underlying principles of construction the house you build will leak constantly and fall apart in a few years.
21. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  *Woosh*
  Enjoy your "assembly" ;)
22. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  My version, took me a few mins (I'm not a programmer) but it works.
  http://imgur.com/kxCJL
23. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by ByteSlicer · 2012-06-12 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  01010110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100110 01101100 01110101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01110101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00101110 00101110 00101110
24. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  A jack of all trades will not stop a civilization that relies on specialization from collapsing. As long as you have a sizable group that is motivated to understand a given subject in sufficient depth it still leaves the people who keep another pillar up free to use the tools of that discipline.
25. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, thats the exact solution I came up with. I'm suing you for copyright infringement.
  But really, this maze demo is great. I sent a link to a friend that wanted to learn about programming. Her solution didn't contain any control statements and was pretty much just the literal movements needed to get to the goal, but she at least got there.
  I'm not sure why the maze demo doesn't contain the blocks for lists and variables. The other demos are more feature complete, but way less fun to play with.
26. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by jomama717 · 2012-06-12 16:38 · Score: 2
  
  ...,but with the man walking backwards:
  Thought for sure that was a goatse link :)
  
  --
  while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
27. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by lorinc · 2012-06-12 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  That is actually how civilization advances.
  No it's not exactly the case, and you gave a perfect example right after. Are you advancing the civilization by being more efficient at your job thanks to a tool you don't understand? I don't think so. You are surely advancing the profits of your company, or your own profit if the paycheck at the end of the month is all you are looking for. But for the somewhat positive evolution of of masses behavior that you named civilization advancement, it's another story.
  Civilization changes due to a deeper comprehension of the universe, be it mathematics, sciences or psychology, sociology or whatever else. This better comprehension allows us as a whole to build new tools (either material like your car or immaterial like equality among sex and races) that in fact will change our global behavior. But restrict the understanding and you get stagnation, which was exactly what happened in the middle-age in Europe.
  In the case of computer programming, if you focus on learning the tool (the syntax of the language or the usage of your IDE) and forget the underlying problem, you just won't be able to do anything useful. The key question in programming is not how to write that damn loop, but what to put in it. Because, you know, syntax is easy: read the manual and type what the hell they say is correct. And if it's not working, read the output of that damn compiler, check the manual again and guess what's wrong. But to answer the question "what are the steps needed to reach this result?", you need a deeper comprehension of the underlying problem. Oh god, you may even have to think for yourself, and there's no tool for that.
  
  --
  Video of some good progressive thrash music
28. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by beachcoder · 2012-06-12 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Repeat forever:
  If [not wall to the left] or [wall ahead] then turn left
  Else move forward
29. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by worf_mo · 2012-06-12 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  01000001 00100000 01100010 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110110 01100101 01110010 01100010 01101111 01110011 01100101 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01100111 01101000 00101110 00101110 00101110 00100000 00111011 00101001
30. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by slim · 2012-06-13 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  I assume lists and variables were left out as a demonstration of how you can build different interfaces for different purposes. If you were designing a programming course, you could introduce block types as you introduced concepts.
31. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-13 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  I was actually commenting on the specific sentiment expressed which is different from your analogy. Blockly abstracts away the intricacies of individual languages and leaves a person with logical tasks to be "assembled" into a working application. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. What I think is a bad thing is the idea that one need not understand a concept before applying it to solve problems. That is what I take issue with and it seems an all too common sentiment.
32. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by gtbritishskull · 2012-06-13 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. My whole point is that it is perfectly fine for most people to not understand the underlying concept. This is the whole reason for Object Oriented Programming. If you are using a well made tool (class), then you do not need to understand how it converts your input into an output. As long as you know that the output is correct (hence the "well made" part), then you can worry about learning about and solving the problems that you are good at. Not to say that people do not need to know any underlying concepts. To make a class that is "well made" (efficient with practically no bugs) you absolutely must have in-depth understanding of ALL of the related concepts. But, if that class works to solve your problem, then it is a waste of time to try to understand the concepts when you already have a solution.
  Personally, I always like to understand how things work because it makes me a more valuable asset (just because a tool works for the current problem does not mean that it will be useful for the next problem). But if we have languages that have a low barrier to entry (the more concepts you have to learn, the more you have to invest time into learning a language) then you will have more people being able to program computers. Our civilization benefits from people being more efficient, and being able to command a computer is one of the easiest ways to increase your efficiency. And while the average person programming will understand less concepts, it is because more people are able to program. The absolute number of people understanding "concepts" will be the same (or actually probably increase since more people are exposed to programming so people who might never have been exposed to it end up pursing it much further).
33. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  WINRAR!!
34. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by gtbritishskull · 2012-06-13 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Are you advancing the civilization by being more efficient at your job thanks to a tool you don't understand?
  Yes.
  Civilization is the sum of its parts. If a genius scientist is bad at technical writing, it is not a failure of civilization. He will instead just find a person who is good at technical writing to help him write his papers. If an astronomer uses Blockly to help him make his telescope scan the sky more efficiently, and discovers dark energy, the fact that he does not know javascript is not really important. If someone is trying to advance civilization in the field of computer science, and doesn't understand how programs work, then you are right. They probably will not get very far. But, if they can use programming to make their other work more efficient (there are fields out there other than computer science), then they can still advance civilization.
  Easier programming languages will not restrict understanding. People will use it for what it is good for, and if they want to go beyond that then they will have to delve deeper into understanding the concepts. If they never need to push beyond the limits of the language, then they probably did not need to have deeper understanding. But, having a tool that is easier to use (that abstracts away the more difficult concepts) expands the user base. Yes, it will allow a lot more people to get by understanding less. But, you do not need a 4 year degree from MIT just to program web pages. And that person would have 4 more years promoting equality among sex and races through websites programmed with Blockly.
35. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-13 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you are using a well made tool (class), then you do not need to understand how it converts your input into an output.
  
  To make a class that is "well made" (efficient with practically no bugs) you absolutely must have in-depth understanding of ALL of the related concepts
  Sooo....we're in agreement? If you're using a tool, you don't need to know how the tool works, but you do need to know what it's doing at a conceptual level. In OOP, this actually a core philosophy: you, in fact, shouldn't know the implementation details of a class, you should use it only for the behavior. But you should be well acquainted with the behavior before you use it. When you use a tool, you should understand the fundamental behaviors that tool provides and the concepts driving those behaviors. If I'm using a hammer, it doesn't matter what alloy was used for the head, but I better know that it's purpose is to apply focused, orthogonal force to a surface.
36. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-13 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I better know that its purpose is to apply
  
  spell checking myself
37. Re:At the risk of sounding elitist... by saveferrousoxide · 2012-06-13 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I just disagree with that philosophy. I think that while it might not be critical to understand how a planetary gear system works to drive a car, I think it is not useless to understand the basic concepts that make a car work. I have certain gear ratios in my transmission, my brakes have pads pushing on a surface to slow the wheel down, my engine takes gas in, detonates it, pushing the piston down, turning a shaft that is hooked into the transmission, etc. Having a basic understanding of the concepts that let your car drive, allows you to be a more effective driver, to diagnose trouble by gathering visual and auditory input, and to better maintain your vehicle so your investment lasts longer. Far from having "absolutely no point" IMO.
That's a good one! by Megane · 2012-06-12 06:35 · Score: 5, Funny

As long as Google doesn't throw this one out in a fit of reorganization and spring cleaning, it's a welcome new language.
If the sun doesn't come up in the morning, I can sleep all day!

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Google OR Microsoft by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-06-12 06:37 · Score: 2

We've developed this new language that... SQUIRREL! Oh, what was that language again. Screw it. Let's dump it and develop a purely functional... SQUIRREL!
May I gently suggest that another language is NOT needed, and that rationally built, compatible extensions and frameworks added to existing languages might, instead, be far, far more useful. C to C++ worked.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Re:Google OR Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  May I gently suggest that another language is NOT needed,
  Correct -- all that's
  needed is a RETURN TO GAMEMAKERDOM.
  Hallellujah, praise GAMEMAKER!
  All glory to the HypnoGAMEMAKER!
2. Re:Google OR Microsoft by jeffmeden · 2012-06-12 06:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Is this really a language as much as it is an IDE that saves to Javascript, Dart, or Python? It's not like they took the new language all the way down, they just wrote a nice Javascript based way to make more Javascript, or Dart, or Python. I suppose in the sense of "knowing how to use it" it then becomes a language since it completely obfuscates the layer below it, but there are plenty of people who make their way through C# with nothing more than the help of Visual Studio. So, is Visual Studio a language too?
3. Re:Google OR Microsoft by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-06-12 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, how would you "close" a programming language?
  
  --
  Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
YAGL by Post-O-Matron · 2012-06-12 06:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yet Another Google Language.
Another Failed Product by Goog by Faisal+Rehman · 2012-06-12 06:40 · Score: 1

This will be another failed product by google.
Looks like another 20% project by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-06-12 06:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm seeing no evidence this is a Google-backed project, at least in the links provided - it's a project from a guy who works at Google, that's all. So expecting Google to guarantee this exists in perpetuity is not particularly realistic. Realistically, you should have the same expectations you'd have on a project from, say, SourceForge.
Basically this looks like a Javascript re-envisioning of Apple's Automator. Might be a fun toy, but not much more than that.

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Looks like another 20% project by franciscohs · 2012-06-12 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  It's probably worse than that, since I don't think management would like to see an employee spend all his 20% time on the same project year after year. I somehow imagine you'd be expected to come with new ideas on your 20% time, so if the project doesn't get any traction quickly it might be discarded even if the creator was willing to maintain it.
"I'm feeling lucky" by kanto · 2012-06-12 06:44 · Score: 1

..."building an app graphically" is to "learning programming" what "using a calculator" is to "learning math." You've replaced an actual understanding of the underlying process with a bunch of buttons to be punched.
It's only still "programming" if you have the knowledge to do it without the tools, but not the time.
You've just summed up Google's whole business model.
Programming??? by arkowitz · 2012-06-12 06:44 · Score: 0

Who cares, it's not real programming anyway. To teach someone programming, you have to convey both the concepts - ok they get that - and the ability to grok structures made of text. No structures made of text grokking, no programmer.
1. Re:Programming??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Tell that to Charles Babbage.
2. Re:Programming??? by Patch86 · 2012-06-12 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck teaching 7 year olds to "grok structures made of text", or at least structures complex enough to represent even reasonably interesting programming projects (beyond "hello world"). For kids that age, it's more important to get their head around the concepts and logic of it all than it is to baffle them with complex syntax and non-standard use of punctuation. They won't even have gotten to grip with regular English punctuation usage by that point!
  To demonstrate, here is a bit of JavaScript generated by this Blockly for a few random shapes I threw together:
  while (true) {
  if (Maze.isWall(0)) {
  while (Maze.isWall(0)) {
  Maze.turn(0);
  Maze.checkTimeout();
  }
  } else {
  }
  Maze.move(0)
  Maze.checkTimeout();
  }
  (In case you're wondering, my fiancee is a primary school teacher who has used Scratch to teach programming to 7 year olds and up. She used projects like maze games and Space Invaders clones to set interesting tasks and learning activities. There's no way she would have even attempted an IT project like that with them if she'd had to do it in Visual Basic. Scratch as a tool literally brought proper computer science education to somewhere where it would never have been otherwise; in another age, those kids wouldn't have gotten their first taste of formal programming education for perhaps almost a decade.)
3. Re:Programming??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  I'm working with sixth graders using lsl in a closed opensim instance and having a modicum of success. Early days still.
  Right tool for the right age eh? As long as they can eventually understand C.
4. Re:Programming??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Leisure Suit Larry?
5. Re:Programming??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, I would have thought that in both the case of 7-year old children and sixth graders, Alice would be a better language. The 3.0 version should have all the capabilities of Java.
6. Re:Programming??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  Wow 7 year olds sure are stupid these days if you are right.
  Kids used to managed complex things in Logo and yes even basic or sometimes pascal way before age 7 back when I was one, did they add brain damaging chemicals to the food or something?
I want a direct Python version of this by dbc · 2012-06-12 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

While I've never made time to go do the experiments, I've often wondered why someone hasn't done a Python IDE that provides a Scratch-like UI, but manipulates the Python AST directly. Seems like that should be doable.
Anyway, I believe Scratch-like interfaces are the future of programming languages. Much as when Backus discovered Noam Chomsky's formal grammars and compilers development as it was done in FORTRAN and COBOL was replaced by a grammar-driven parser in the development of Algol, and pretty much all languages since, eventually, the Scratch-ification of the IDE will become the "obvious" replacement for linear streams of ASCII character codes.
Again with this self-promoting troll? by g051051 · 2012-06-12 07:08 · Score: 2

Why is "mikejuk" allowed to just post his own opinion pieces as news?
As a teacher, I'd put my money on "no" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've taught quite a few courses ranging from traditional programming to tools such as Adobe Flash (which allows you to use any combination of the graphical tools and ActionScript, the latter being a full-fledged object-oriented programming language, with GC and all the other modern niceties). I've drawn boxes around variables to symbolize how they contain the values, I've given assignments to write pseudo-code, I've demonstrated the concept of algorithms by asking students to give me clear instructions on how to order a stack of documents alphabetically, when I only know how to access them by index and compare two documents... and I'm not sure if any of that has been worth the time.
I don't think I've ever run into a student, who would have been able to actually grasp the concept but would then have stumbled because the code part is difficult. There are people who can grasp the concepts and who then have no real trouble with the code and then there are people who don't really understand having one loop inside another, no matter whether you allow them to write down code, draw flowcharts or whatever.
1. Re:As a teacher, I'd put my money on "no" by Angostura · 2012-06-12 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  Let me introduce you to my 8 year old daughter. She had quite a lot of fun trying to solve the maze problem and come up with an algorithm to do it. She was interested in the problem, trying to teach her the syntax of a programming language would have made the problem less accessible, I doubt she would have enjoyed it.
2. Re:As a teacher, I'd put my money on "no" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'll provide an alternate use case for you: I'm a professional computer programmer on disability with late Lyme disease. I have encephalopathy which specifically affects my ability to retain arbitrary abstract associations, while my abstract logic and spatial reasoning is fairly intact. Actual programming by hand? I haven't been able to do that for two years now. But something like this could have a fair bit of potential as a rehabilitary tool for someone like me.
  I would also hazard a guess that there are people whose brains naturally have the same strengths/weaknesses, but that such minds don't flourish in a traditional academic setting. (I would be hopeless if I tried doing even an entry level undergrad course in my current state.) So you might not gain much from this in your classes, but that's not to say noone will benefit from it.
3. Re:As a teacher, I'd put my money on "no" by edumacator · 2012-06-12 21:08 · Score: 2
  
  Let me introduce you to my 8 year old daughter. She had quite a lot of fun trying to solve the maze problem and come up with an algorithm to do it. She was interested in the problem, trying to teach her the syntax of a programming language would have made the problem less accessible, I doubt she would have enjoyed it.
  Same for my 9 year old daughter. After the maze we moved on to write a program to count to 100 by intervals.
  Seeing my daughter excited about programming like that was awesome. A little less cool, but infinitely more shocking, was that when she showed my wife her programs, describing them in detail, my wife's eyes didn't glaze over, like they do when I talk about coding.
  
  --
  An important change for education.
Yes by spike2131 · 2012-06-12 07:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Also, is there any evidence whatsoever that these "graphical" languages are easier for people to learn?
My kid is 5, and he spends hours writing little programs in Scratch. The click and drag aspect of the graphical language makes it much easier for him. If he had to rely on his nascent typing skills to write code, he'd be stuck in the frustration of Syntax Error Hell, as I was for years when I first started pounding out Basic code on the Apple II.

--
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
What does this improve on? by shadowrat · 2012-06-12 07:33 · Score: 1

After some playing around, i had a script that could solve the maze with while(true){ turn(left); while(wall(ahead)){ turn(right); } move(forward); }
assuming i was given an api with functions like turn(), wall(), and move() and they took those constants it would be a hell of a lot easier just to type what i typed there than to navigate menus and drag things all over the place. maybe it's inviting to non programmers, but sooner or later they are going to realize that the punctuation isn't what's hard about programming, it's the logic.
1. Re:What does this improve on? by slim · 2012-06-13 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  After some playing around, i had a script that could solve the maze with
  Same algorithm I came up with. Well done.
  
  assuming i was given an api with functions like turn(), wall(), and move() and they took those constants it would be a hell of a lot easier just to type what i typed there than to navigate menus and drag things all over the place. maybe it's inviting to non programmers, but sooner or later they are going to realize that the punctuation isn't what's hard about programming, it's the logic.
  That "sooner or later" is what it's all about. The jigsaw interface lets the beginner play with logic and control with literally no opportunity for a syntax error.
  Later, they export to JS/Python/Dart and can see how the exported text corresponds to their shapes. If they're at all curious, they try modifying and running the text version of the code.
  That's when they realise that they can be more productive if they just hack at the text -- and that the tradeoff (having to get syntax right) is worth it.
  But dealing with syntax when you've never coded before is a big hurdle. Why not remove it?
2. Re:What does this improve on? by shadowrat · 2012-06-13 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. I guess i forget what it was like to have no knowledge of any syntax.
Not elitist, but you're missing the point. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-06-12 07:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're quibbling over symbology, while missing the important distinctions.
At the most trivial level, just about all programming is "graphical". Characters are symbols. A two-dimensional array of symbols is a graphic. You don't think of it as a graphic, but there it is, right there on your display.
If you've got a graphical language that lets you drag colorful boxes around, snap them together, and watch them twinkle contentedly as the program executes, how exactly is that different from using text? If it's "less rich" -- if there are constructs available in a "conventional language" that aren't available in the graphical language -- then we can discuss the graphical language's particular deficits, and perhaps correct them.
1. Re:Not elitist, but you're missing the point. by gman003 · 2012-06-12 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  I think the key point of a visual programming language/editor is functionality. I once used a *terrible* flowchart-based C compiler. It was literally impossible to do some things. Like, say, a modulus. Or define your own subroutines. And so on.
  You know what would be a good test for this? You should be able to write a program (any program) in regular text mode, then import it into a visual editor and edit it there, and then re-export it into regular text and have it still be legible. If a visual editor can do that, it's as good as any other IDE.
2. Re:Not elitist, but you're missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  You know what would be a good test for Haskell? You should be able to write a program in it, then convert it to (legible) C, and then convert it back to Haskell and have it still legible. If Haskell can do that it's as good as any other programing language... Hmm, maybe Haskless has such radically different semantics from C that this wouldn't... or maybe Haskell has such radically different semantics that a two way conversion doesn't make sense? Visual programing (done right) isn't just a representation of textual code, it's a different programing language altogether!
3. Re:Not elitist, but you're missing the point. by slim · 2012-06-13 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  You know what would be a good test for this? You should be able to write a program (any program) in regular text mode, then import it into a visual editor and edit it there, and then re-export it into regular text and have it still be legible. If a visual editor can do that, it's as good as any other IDE.
  No, that's not the aim. The lead dev wouldn't do his real coding with jigsaw pieces. It's an educational tool. You can export to JS/Dart/Python and that's good for two reasons:
  1. The learner can see how their jigsaw pieces translate into text
  2. The learner can take that text and use it as the starting point for something bigger
  The real point of this is that you can get started without learning syntax. Most of us don't remember how hard we found syntax when we got started, but it's a real issue for many beginners. Watching your logic working is the satisfying part of coding. You never get that satisfaction if your problems satisfying the compiler make you give up in frustration. Yes, you need to learn to produce syntactically valid code -- but save that battle for later.
  This is one reason I think syntax-light languages such as Logo and Forth are actually very good teaching languages.
We've hit the "fashion" stage of technology by istartedi · 2012-06-12 07:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Model-Ts were "any color you like, as long as it's black". It was General Motors that started coloring things up and I think they also invented model years. The model year is a not so subtle suggestion that you are driving an "old" car even though it still runs fine.
As people "acquire" technology like search and programming languages, the people who made their scratch creating these things are left with nothing to do. You might think they'd move on to create something entirely different, or that they'd move into maintenance mode as you suggest. However, they have special expertise in creating not maintaining, and moreover they have special exerptise in creating particular kinds of things. The easiest thing for them to do is fool people into believing that thing A is obsolete so they can create thing B which is fundamentally the same. They maximize their profit that way. It's not so much malice as it is simple laziness. It's economics 101, really.
People want recurring revenue. It's the next best thing to economic rent. Or as I like to say, "everybody wants to be a subsidized farmer".

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
1. Re:We've hit the "fashion" stage of technology by rHBa · 2012-06-12 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, your sigblock is really annoying, are you trolling with that or what?
  
  FYI, I'm referring to 'all intensive purposes', it gives me a headache just typing it :-/
2. Re:We've hit the "fashion" stage of technology by asdf7890 · 2012-06-13 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Model-Ts were "any color you like, as long as it's black". It was General Motors that started coloring things up
  Actually, for the first half decade the model T was in a few colours: none of them black. The quote is correct though, but the all-black period is later in the car's life cycle.
3. Re:We've hit the "fashion" stage of technology by istartedi · 2012-06-14 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's a joke. It's an old joke. I would change it, but it's drawn a lot of remarks and that causes problems with the integrity of the archives.
  Why? Because AFAIK Slashdot archives a function call to the "sig function" that you define in your preferences. If I change my sig, I change the appearance of the archived pages. It would create too many bizarre non sequiturs regarding the comments about the sig.
  Slashdot could fix this by crawling the entire archive, replacing the function call with the current return value, and henceforth archiving the current return value rather than the function call.
  I doubt that will happen because it would involve coding effort and server resources for something that from their PoV probably isn't much of a problem.
  Hmmm... actually:
  1. Archive all current sigs.
  2. The function invoked by the archived pages is changed to retreive from the archives sigs.
  3. A new function is written that retrieves the current sig, and the new pages call that function instead of the old one.
  4. The archiver archives the sigs instead of the function that retrieves the sigs.
  That would avoid the crawl; but the archives would be full of redundant sigs. I suspect that's why they did it in the first place--to save disk space. The everliving grammar troll sig is the consequence though, or else a failure of archive integrity.
  This, BTW, is part of a larger problem with the web and dynamic content. For example, with print journalism you can go back and look a "period" advertisements. This will not be possible with the web, because the archives contain calls to 3rd party servers that serve current ads.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
4. Re:We've hit the "fashion" stage of technology by rHBa · 2012-06-14 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Thank $deity you're grammar trolling, I might get some sleep tonight ;-)
Try it... by jopsen · 2012-06-12 07:46 · Score: 1

It's just the normal programming blocks, while untill, if, and then some actions and boolean expressions... Where you put things together like blocks... It's for people who can't type the keywords in plaintext and would thus rather drag n' drop the keywords... Doesn't make sense...

By the way I doubt this is a product, looks more like an experiment. And let not blame Google stop wasting money on this when they do...
Instead I'd give them a little respect for wasting money trying to make something that might be slightly new, though I seriously doubt it is :)
1. Re:Try it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  I've always wanted to see one of these "stick blocks together" languages teach things like like monads and applicative functors, teach concepts that are actually interesting, and not just be an interface more cumbersome than text. I suspect I'll always be waiting in vain.
Related nostalgia by fiannaFailMan · 2012-06-12 08:45 · Score: 1

Anyone remember HyperCard?

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
1. Re:Related nostalgia by LanMan04 · 2012-06-13 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I cut my programming teeth on HyperCard (well, really BASIC, but HyperCard was next).
  I built so many damn useful little apps in HyperCard in my youth...one of my favorites was one that displayed porn images hidden in the resource fork of that particular Hypercard stack (to hide from Dad).
  And then there were all those awesome Hypercard extensions that added functionality, etc etc. I loved it.
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
JAVA was the problem (well oracle) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 09:27 · Score: 1

And now Oracle seems to be getting blacklisted in the industry, which is good. A lesson well learned for those that become greedy and try to change the way of open source
1. Re:JAVA was the problem (well oracle) by physburn · 2012-06-12 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oracle don't seem to have messed my MySQL or BerkeleyDB since they bought them. Java didn't have an GNU license, it had teams of sun lawyers creating a license, and the recent ruiling between Oracle and Sun, seems to proof that the Java API (and maybe API is general), are open to be implemented by all. Which after all, is what an API is for.
Now the truth can be told by MisterSquid · 2012-06-12 10:00 · Score: 3, Funny

I got a version that looks like this
when (aProblem.comes(along)){
you.whip(it,must);
}
before(cream.sitsOut(tooLong)){
you.whip(it,must);
}
go(forward);
move(ahead);
try(detect(it));
if(it != too late) {
you.whip(it,good)
}

--
blog
Sorry, dont trust them by nurb432 · 2012-06-12 12:20 · Score: 1

At the rate they float these trial balloons then yank them back just as you get used to it, no thanks.
Google is far too unstable with their 'extra' offerings to even warrant a look at them.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
App INventor lives on by davidannis · 2012-06-12 12:29 · Score: 1

It was open sourced and is available at http://beta.appinventor.mit.edu/ I plan to use it with my kids this summer.
Not quite as good as Illumination Software Creator by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:36 · Score: 0

and nowhere near as egotistical to name the language after itself either
jump to: Stop reading; Lose interest; exit(1); by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-12 14:10 · Score: 1

It works like Scratch or App inventor but it is written in JavaScript.

Stop reading. Lose interest. Next story.
Gold Mine Stock by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:06 · Score: 0

I am looking forward to seeing this type of site.
Doesn't work in Firefox by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 22:34 · Score: 0

Be prepared for disappointment.
I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 00:02 · Score: 0

It works like Scratch or App inventor but it is written in JavaScript. This means it can be included in any web page or web app very easily. This, in turn, means that it can be used for education
You mean like javascript?
universal translator by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 02:09 · Score: 0

If this is the beginning of a 'Rosetta Stone' project then I'm all for it.
Spoken language translation is getting pretty good. I don't see why formal language translation and interoperability should be behind.
C and C++ by LanMan04 · 2012-06-13 04:26 · Score: 1

Is this really a language as much as it is an IDE that saves to Javascript, Dart, or Python?
Well, you could say the same thing about C and C++. C++ code is "saved" to C code and THEN compiled to machine code (at least that's how it used to work) using the C compiler.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Maven plugin? by NoGenius · 2012-06-14 01:06 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if there is a Maven plugin that can unit test my Blockly apps on our Jenkins server?