[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@flightlab.com
|
