This sounds like the start of a manifesto :)
On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is the boring old scheme example of the factorial in scheme
> bricks:
> http://www.pawfal.org/dave/images/sbfact.png
>
> When I press 'x' it gets converted to this, which is then run:
> (define (factorial n) (if (zero? n) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1)))))
>
> There is no difference in the content of the two representations, the
> pure text version is not any more complex, nor closer to machine
> instructions than the image. It would be possible to write an
> interpreter, or compiler that reads the image structure directly,
> rather
> than converting it to text first.
>
> Many people, (strangely including a lot interested in computers)
> have a
> latent disinterest or even fear of programming, which usually means
> screenfuls of ascii (and people interested in linux :)
>
> I think this fear is played upon, and to a large extent caused, by
> programmers themselves - who promise 'normal' people they will be able
> to do anything they want with a computer without having to mess around
> with all this nasty complex stuff, leave that to us, have some nice
> buttons with rounded corners and give us cash.
>
> So programming languages that sidestep this 'ascii block' immediately
> break through this to appeal to a different set of people.
>
> Now, although they represent the same thing, the equivalence of
> ascii vs
> non-ascii programming languages isn't true when it comes to their
> interface, and I have to agree with Evan on this. The reason I
> livecode
> with scheme bricks isn't really to persuade the masses that
> programming
> is easy with coloured rectangles - it's because it feels different
> to me
> than using ascii, and yes, this does result in a different thinking
> process for me.
>
> One concrete example of this is that I tend to build up a
> collection of
> 'spare parts' (as Matthew called them) lying around which I grab and
> recycle for different things later on. I don't tend to do this with
> text
> so much, as it becomes confusing with too many commented out sections.
> Another is that due to the auto-parenthesis matching, mistakes I make
> are less likely to result in error and rather in a different sound -
> allowing you to be more serendipitous. This is something which is more
> likely to appeal to people more open to an experimental approach (in
> contrast to traditional top down engineering approach), and I wish
> more
> programming languages exploited this.
>
> One slightly different but really important point, which visual
> programming languages allow (but no real reason that ascii ones can't
> too) is highlight the process as well as it's description. I can't
> understand why people don't do this more - for instance, flashing
> play/trigger/bang instructions in sync with the sounds they
> represent is
> great for the audience and for the livecoder too.
>
> cheers,
>
> dave
>
Evan Raskob
ML Studio
4-8 Arcola Street
London E8 2DJ
United Kingdom
http://mlstudio.co.uk
http://pixelist.info
Received on Mon Oct 19 2009 - 14:26:58 BST
