> On 01.02.2015, at 19:13, David Griffiths <dave_at_pawfal.org> wrote:
>
>> In a way though it's still text.. Just using an invented ideographic alphabet.
>>
>> Some might be bored of me making this point, but I think it's
>> important..The graphical/text distinction is often specious, if
>> there's discrete symbols being combined then it's still text.
>
> Yes, absolutely - I was making the lazy distinction. I think the 'ascii
> text' convention in programming is more an accident of history than
> anything designed, or even appropriate for purpose as it seems so
> cumbersome half the time. Culturally though, we are so very attached to it!
The idea that writing is discrete and non-text isn't seems as common as misleading though. Of course it is often the case.
But I am most curious to understand better under what conditions we can speak of grammar and syntax. It seems much lacking in the GUI that occupies the opposite end of the spectrum from computer language.
No doubt that visual thinking as well as visual syntax exist.
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/2BJhvAFJG0F9HHXyMAw3ar
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Sun Feb 01 2015 - 18:33:42 GMT