Below.
On Jun 13, 2011, at 2:16 PM, "C. Scott Ananian" <csc...@laptop.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:02 PM, BGB <cr88...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider what it'd be like if we didn't represent code as text... and
>> represented it maybe as series of ideograms or icons (TileScript nod).
>> Syntax errors don't really crop up any more, do they? Given a slightly nicer
>> User Interface than tilescript, you could still type your code, (ie use the
>> keyboard to fast-select tokens), but the computer won't "validate" any input
>> that isn't in its "dictionary" of known possible syntactically correct items
>> given whatever context you're in.
>
> I think "Tiles prevent syntax errors" is a red herring. Sure, you can
> prevent stupid typos by offering only tiles with correctly spelled
> keywords, but that's not really a major problem in ordinary
> experience. The more pernicious errors aren't especially affected one
> way or the other by tile-based systems. (You could just as accurately
> say that strongly-typed systems prevent errors.)
Agreed, when we're talking about adults, and especially ones who've already
learned to code. When it comes to kids and non-programming adults though, I do
think that e.g. Scratch is really powerful.
I don't have the cognitive science to back up the statement that I'm about to
make, so I'm hoping folks will try to shoot some holes in it.
Kids may not have the linguistic development out of the way that one needs to
do "serious" programming. Adults who don't already code may find themselves
short on some of the core concepts that conventional programming languages
expect of the user. In both cases, I think visual systems can get useless
syntactic hurdles out of the way, so that users can focus of developing a
command of the core concepts at work.
Inviting criticism! Fire away, ladies and gentlemen.
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
