Re: The ULTIMATE Cocoa Development Language
Re: The ULTIMATE Cocoa Development Language
- Subject: Re: The ULTIMATE Cocoa Development Language
- From: Steve Schacht <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 12:10:33 -0700
On 1/3/02 10:06 PM, Thomas Hudson wrote:
>
I hear english is about to be preempted by these new fangled
>
hieroglyphics.
>
Unless the Chinese ideograms take over first.
I realize you're joking, but wow, is that way out in left field! :-/
>
All kidding aside, language (which probably has a twenty thousand year
>
head start), and which computer languages are a subset of, is still
>
better for conveying massive complexity.
First of all, I'm not sure I'd characterize computer languages as a "subset"
of written languages. The SYMBOLS used to program computers are certainly
borrowed from the SYMBOLS which comprise the written language and thus could
be considered a subset thereof. However, to imply that Objective C, for
instance, is a subset of English is _way_ off base.
>
Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but are a thousand pictures worth a
>
million words.
To me, "picture" is a poor word choice. I think the term "symbol" is better
- a symbol simply being a visual representation of a concept. Are not the
characters, numbers, and punctuation marks which constitute a "line" of code
merely symbols themselves? And then those symbols are arranged to
represent something at some higher level still. You may prefer to poke at
your keyboard to construct a sequence of symbols which are interpreted from
left to right to convey meaning to the compiler. I, on the other hand,
would prefer to use symbols which encapsulate more meaning and which better
convey that meaning to humans, not computers.
I couldn't care less how a compiler "does its magic." I just want to
construct a program in a way that's meaningful to _me_ and then have the
computer execute it.
>
How many cartoon pictures will it take to convey "Finnegans Wake?"
Well, I don't know what Finnegans Wake is (sounds like a funeral for some
dead dude), but assuming it's some algorithm or logical construct, I can
almost guarantee that it would take far fewer symbols in a visual
programming language than in a text based one.
>
It may be good for small RAD, but so far, the complexity of large applications
>
has always proven many frameworks or abstractions to be a hindrance rather
>
than a help, making the first eighty percent of work easier, and the last
>
twenty percent harder.
That could be so; I don't know. If it is, I would guess that it's a
limitation of various implementations - not of visual programming in
general. Prograph allowed you to drill down, revealing as much of the
conceptual flow as you wanted. You could go all the way down to the getting
and setting of values in what amounted to a C struct.
>
Believe me, easy in the beginning will lead to a life of toil and hardship.
Well, I'm glad not everyone shares your view, or else advancements in
computer programming would be even slower to come.
>
Easy in the end is what you're looking for.
Easy from start to finish is actually what I'm looking for. ;-)
>
Kind of like playing guitar, if you want effortless blistering leads, start
>
with finger blisters.
And if you don't have the time, desire, or ability to learn how to play
guitar but still want to make your own music, a synthesizer might be an
easier means to that end. Ok, it's not the best analogy, but my point is
that there are many people out there who are not formally schooled in
computer programming yet have very good ideas about what they'd like a
computer to do. Why should programming be so far out of reach for them? I
contend that some form of visual programming would make the task much more
feasible/accessible for them. I think we're just approaching this topic
from wildly different perspectives.
Well anyway, I don't mean for this thread to get off topic and into a
general discussion on visual programming. It's just that I think Cocoa's
OOP framework is an ideal candidate for some type of visual language tool.
(Now why doesn't this darn computer just respond to my spoken words?! After
all, it works for Captain Piccard! Oh wait, speakable items is turned
off... *snicker*)
---
Steve Schacht
email@hidden