Re: The ULTIMATE Cocoa Development Language
Re: The ULTIMATE Cocoa Development Language
- Subject: Re: The ULTIMATE Cocoa Development Language
- From: Patrick Juchli <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:41:32 +0100
I know visual programming from MAX/MSP ( www.cycling74.com ), especially in
conjunction with NATO, a package of additional objects which enable you to
develop realtime video crunching applications. (see
http://www.eusocial.com/nato.0+55+3d/242.objektz.html for a very short list
of the available objects)
In my opinion, visual programming languages are not just better. They're
just *different* - especially if they're dataflow-oriented like MAX/MSP,
where you can get errors simply because one object is at the left of another
and not at the right.
The wish for a visual programming/thinking environment is very interesting.
"the clean architecture" of Cocoa does not scream for 3D-representation - we
are. 3D-representation or just graphical representation of complex
structures and/or systems often gives the illusion of being better, they
"allow you to see the whole thing in its complexity". The
Aesthetics&Computation Group at the Media Lab of the MIT is dealing a lot
with such issues. (If I remember correctly they also did kind of a simple 3D
programming environment..)
My opinion is, that you don't have more overview or better control over your
system. "Visualizing==seeing things more clearer" is an old paradigm of our
culture. The fact is - you get the overview because you loose detail (or
your application is really simple) or you focus on something else. Take UML
for example. It's cool. It lets you design a system with a bunch of people.
But you're not programming in UML. If you say "hey stop little boy I did it
I'm a software architect": did you really add each detail to your hopefully
huge UML-diagram? Did you really build a graphical representation of a
complex system? And if so: was it easy? How much time did you spend?
If someone wishes to have a 3D-represention of the Cocoa-architecture: do
you want to simply work out the model and look at the beauty of a complex
framework with it's thousands of links or do you really want to program in
it? Thats a huge difference. It's not gonna be easier. (Especially not with
screen-oriented computers) In fact - please just do this 3D-representation
of Foundation. I want to zoom in and see every little detail, every
connection, each beautiful concept. I want to programm like adding a
mutation of a certain structure inside of other structures. I wanna zoom out
and have the big picture. Do it. It will look nice. A lot of artistical
installations/performances which deal with complexity (Internet, etc.) are
nice. They look beautiful. But not because we now understand the system.
It's because we see the unreachable complexity in front of us and dream our
way through the millions of synapses and connections.
Visual programming tenda to be self-reflective. They look easy. Beautiful.
Intuitive. All those words that express our wishes. But they're not. (And
they're not bullshit either.) Maybe it's like visualizing the narrative
structures of a 300pages book.
MAX/MSP/NATO is not easy. As soon as you get complex, it's getting complex
too.
But I understand it's fun. ;-)