Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Paul Prescod wrote: > Note that languages/systems that depend on IDEs have no evolutionary > staying power. [...] And every attempt to > make programming languages deeply visual has failed. > > Part of the problem is that there is a stubborn hacker subculture that > will not be bullied into buying tools and they will invent a better > replacement if only to avoid it! I wouldn't write this off to hacker stubbornness. When it comes to programming, a text editor and a good language really *are* the best tools for the job. A point-and-click IDE might be an effective way to assemble a working application from prepackaged components, but that isn't programming. I believe something similar is true for schema design. > Visualization tools are fine, but they should be visualizing the true > abstractions in the language you are "editing", not trying to hide them > from you with some thin, proprietary, quasi-abstraction layer. Or used as a band-aid to make up for an overly complex underlying abstraction. --Joe English jenglish@f...
|
