We need visual programming. No, not like that

Re:We need visual programming. No, not like that by pjmlp on Monday July 15, 2024 @02:38AM (#40965734)

I would vouch a different take, visual programming makes it quite clear the mess of programs some people create when they don't follow modular programming.

Complex flows can be packaged into functions and modules representations, instead of dummping everything into a single screen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need visual programming. No, not like that by frou_dh on Monday July 15, 2024 @04:19AM (#40966095)

Much like designing Integrated Circuit chips, vs. only doing basic breadboard-ing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need visual programming. No, not like that by jampekka on Monday July 15, 2024 @06:39AM (#40966658)

The spatial (usually largely 2D in IC) constraints are a huge limitation for circuit design. I'm quite sure chips (or breadboards) wouldn't be designed like this if the physical world wouldn't force the geometry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need visual programming. No, not like that by frou_dh on Monday July 15, 2024 @06:50AM (#40966704)

I meant more that the very concept of an IC is a good idea, and like a good abstraction in programming.

I think pjmlp was getting at is that when using visual programming, a lot of people seem to turn off (or not cultivate) the part of the thought process concerned with creating good abstractions, despite it at least being possible to do so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need visual programming. No, not like that by pjmlp on Monday July 15, 2024 @09:07AM (#40967551)

Exactly, packaging transitors into IC Modules, so to speak.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We need visual programming. No, not like that by pjmlp on Monday July 15, 2024 @05:19AM (#40966345)

Yes, very much so.

[ Parent | on HN ]