The History of Visual Development Environments

Esther Schindler writes "There was a time when programs were written in text editors. And when competition between C++ vendors was actually fierce. Step into the time travel machine as Andy Patrizio revisits the evolution and impact of the visual development metaphor. 'Visual development in its earliest stages was limited by what the PC could do. But for the IBM PC in the early 1980s, with its single-tasking operating system and 8- or 16-bit hardware, the previous software development process was text edit, compile, write down the errors, and debug with your eyes.' Where do you start? 'While TurboPascal launched the idea of an integrated development environment, [Jeff] Duntemann credits Microsoft's Visual Basic (VB), launched in 1991, with being the first real IDE.'... And yes, there's plenty more." A comment attached to the story lists two IDEs that preceded VB; can you name others?

Comments

VB?

[Lumpy]

Making managers that are "handy" think they are programmers cince 1992...

Re:VB?

[cultiv8]

...and building GUI interfaces to track killers IP addresses...

Quick C by Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Had a block-graphics GUI, mouse support and a visual debugger

Can't remember the date, but certainly pre Windows 3.1

QuickBasic

[adonoman]

QuickBasic was already at v4.5 in 1988 - 3 years before Visual Basic.

VMS and Atari ST development tools

[LizardKing]

That's a very Microsoft-centric article, although it does have a passing mention of Smalltalk. Earliest IDE I ever used was the toolset on VMS, which included editor, compiler, debugger and profiler - they were integrated via the shell. If that doesn't qualify, then there was DevPac for assembler and a C development package (Lattice C I think) on my Atari ST, which inclued integrated tools that were far more sophisticated than what was later offered by Turbo Pascal.

Text editors are still around.

[Viol8]

"There was a time when programs were written in text editors."

Yeah , 5 minutes ago when I finished updating some code.

Plenty of unix C/C++/script/python coders still use vi and emacs. Just because IDEs rule the roost in Windows and Java development, don't assume every coder users or even requires them.

Re:Text editors are still around.

[_anomaly_]

I disagree. The very best are very good at determining the best tool for the job.
I'd absolutely hate to attempt to build a database application supposed to run in a windowing environment, with emphasis on UI/user experience, using any of the best text editors.

Re:Text editors are still around.

[Motard]

No, because I'd be wasting time reinventing things that have no business being reinvented. Using common controls such as those in the VCL encourage code re-use. While you are (re)designing a declarative language, I will be implementing more features.

And there's a reason why IDE's tend to be tightly bound to a platform. All of the cross platform solutions turned out to be inferior because they were limited to the lowest common denominator. Applications that aren't so limited work better because they take atvantage of all the features of the environment and fit better within it. This is why Apple limited iOS apps to native apps.

Re:Text editors are still around.

[Darinbob]

Well, I used to use "cat > a.out" but the problem is that too many terminals aren't fully 8-bit capable. So I got lazy in my old age and use a hex editor instead. I know it's a bit simple minded, but since I can do all hex digits on a numeric keypad with a single hand, I've discovered that I can use my other hand to pet the cat at the same time.

Hypercard

[Spectre]

When I think of "visual programming" the first thing I think of is Hypercard ... I was at uni when that came out, so late 80's?

Define IDE

[squiggleslash]

...because the ZX80 (and ZX81 and Sinclair Spectrum, which used more advanced versions of the same BASIC) had a visual editor with keywords auto-completed and dynamic syntax checking back in 1980. ZX BASIC was even windowed (on a 32x24 character screen!) with the upper window being for program I/O and/or viewing the program code, the lower for entering commands, seeing status information, and editing lines.

The thing about an IDE is that it's an obvious concept and pretty much anyone who's tried to make programming more user friendly has implemented such a thing. True, NetBeans looks nothing like the ZX80 or EMACS, but then Java in 2013 looks nothing like ZX BASIC either - as languages have evolved and projects have become more complex, the tools to manage them have needed to become more complex and manage more concepts.

What's funny is that we bothered giving the concept a name at an arbitrary cut-off point in the development of development environments.

Seriously?

[0xdeadbeef]

While TurboPascal launched the idea of an integrated development environment, [Jeff] Duntemann credits Microsoft's Visual Basic (VB), launched in 1991, with being the first real IDE

Which makes him a retard. Form designers are not the primary component of IDEs, nor are they necessary to be called an IDE.

Earlier IDEs

[dpbsmith]

Without even trying to do any historic digging:

Asymetrix Toolbook shipped "with" Windows well before VB. In fact the company I worked for foolishly assumed it was "part of" Windows. Toolbook, in turn, was not exactly a knockoff of HyperCard, but was certainly a member of the same genre.

LabView for the Macintosh shipped in 1986, and not only still exists but has a very solid niche in some circles. LabView is such a pure visual IDE that there are not visible lines of code as such; it is all wiring diagrams.

Bill Budge's 1983 Pinball Construction Set, for the Apple ][ and Atari, was certainly an IDE, although for a restricted class of applications.

Incidentally, it seems to me that the later incarnations of Visual Studio are considerably less "integrated" than the original Visual Basic was. Visual Studio has the feeling to me of being no more "integrated" than, say, Borland C++ or the (1985) MacPascal. Unlike VB, it just had a fairly crude resource-editor-like "drawing" environment. It feels OK when you're creating things for the first time, but the visual objects do not really "contain" code--they have a very loose and fragile connection to the code associated with them.