Greg Smith wrote:
> Programming is an exhausting pastime, and an even more exhausting
> occupation. Just look at some of these guys after 30 years of it,
> if they last that long. (Please post your photos, here).
The photos are at:
<http://www.frappr.com/runtimerevolution>
The folks there look like they're having a good time. The only
crazy-looking person there is Bjoernke von Gierke, but we all know he's
a madman anyway. :) (great pic, Bjoernke)
For some of us programming is a meditation, a relaxing departure from
more complicated and harried tasks like driving (maybe I've been in LA
too long <g>).
I was talking with Ken the other day about this, and he and I agreed
that if we found ourselves doing pretty much the same thing in ten years
we'd probably still be having a very good time.
> I am convinced that visually oriented people are never going to
> buy into textual, (with lots of abbreviations), representations
> of visual things. Or, rather, they may buy into it, but they
> will hate every moment of it.
Visual artist Scott Rossi seems to do okay, but his personality may be
as rare as his talents.
I've had a keen interest in iconic programming systems since their
heyday back in the early '90s. I have a folder here chock full o'
screenshots from them, and periodically daydream about having the time
to make yet another contribution to that pool.
But what stops me is recognizing that very few of them exist today, and
none are wildly popular. It may well be the case that JavaScript, ugly
as that bastardized half-baked language is, is used by more people today
than the sum of all people who've ever used iconic systems.
This seems counterintuitive, and is as disappointing to me as it may be
to you. Back in the day I held great hope for iconic programming, and
once believed it to be the future for "inventive users". Given how
history has played out I'm not so sure today.
Shortly after Bill Appleton first released his SuperCard, in an
interview I did with him for a regional magazine I asked him about
iconic programming, since his previous product was CourseBuilder. He
said that while iconic programming had a lot of value for simple things,
to do anything complex meant creating diagrams that were difficult to
read, and that ultimately a substantial program like even a basic text
editor would be as hard to read expressed purely visually as it would be
in textual code.
I agree that programming isn't for everyone. Some like it, some don't,
like any other human activity. But if you like it, it ain't bad at all;
on the contrary, it can be very relaxing and deeply satisfying.
And if you prefer iconic systems, I'm enough of an optimist to believe
the jury's still out. I think there's always room for more inventions,
and the contintual evolution of how humans tell computers what do to has
only barely begun.
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
