> You're saying "Program that run continuously every time you make any change are very much unlike what a program does?" That doesn't make any sense to me at all, can you please try to rephrase it?

Running continuously every time you make any change is very much unlike what a program does. Programming is characteristically about controlling the sequencing of instructions/behaviour, and someone editing a spreadsheet in the conventional (non-macro) way is not doing that.

> Do you still maintain that "Excel sheets in their widely used form are not instructions or behaviour", despite the examples and citation I gave you? If so, I'm pretty sure we're not talking about the same Microsoft Excel, or even using the same Wikipedia.

This is thoroughly dishonest of you. You edited those points and examples into your comment, there was no mention of macros or "programming by demonstration" at the point when I hit reply.

To respond to those added arguments now: I suspect those features are substantially less popular than Ruby. Your own source states that Microsoft themselves discourage the use of the things you're talking about. Excel is popular and it may be possible to write programs in it, but writing programs in it is not popular and the popular uses of Excel are not programs. Magic: The Gathering is extremely popular and famously Turing-complete, but it would be a mistake to see that as evidence for the viability of a card-based programming paradigm.

> Your definition is arbitrarily gerrymandered because you're trying to drag the editor into the definition of the language, while I'm talking about the representation and structure of the language itself, which defines the language, not the tools you use to edit it, which don't define the language.

Anything "visual" is necessarily going to be about how the human interacts with the language, because vision is something that humans have and computers don't (unless you're talking about a language for implementing computer vision or something).

> I'll repeat what I already wrote, defining how you can distinguish a non-visual text programming language like C++ from a visual programming language like a spreadsheet or Max/MSP by the number of dimensions and structure of its syntax:

But you can't objectively define whether a given syntactic construct is higher-dimensional or not. Plenty of languages have constructs that describe two- or more-dimensional spaces - e.g. object inheritance graphs, effect systems. Whether we consider these languages to be visual or not always comes down to how programmers typically interact with them.

> PSIBER is an interactive visual user interface to a graphical PostScript programming environment that I wrote years after the textual PostScript language was designed at Adobe and defined in the Red Book, but it didn't magically retroactively transform PostScript into a visual language

There's nothing magical about new tools changing what kind of language a given language is. Lisp was a theoretical language for reasoning about computation until someone implemented an interpreter for it and turned it into a programming language.