|
 |
somebody wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
> news:48f8f145$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> That would utterly suck. Programming languages should be about meaning
>> and meaning is conveyed by words, not by how they are drawn or spelled.
>
> Meaning is conveyed by anything that is meant to convey meaning, be it
> words, grunts, connections between gears, flowcharts, hearldry symbols,
> colours... etc.
You know? That's very true. And I can even imagine a tokenizer to a
compiler accepting italicized words to be different from non-italicized
words if it was to internally apply some transform like:
*Foo* /foo/;
bold_foo -> italic_foo ->
etc.
To me, it just sucks, though. It means, when I'm writing a program I
have now to think not only of good identifier names, but also of
correctly applying the right styling, besides also capitalization.
> Pictorial representations will eventually assume a more
> prominant role in general programming.
Sure, UML and company have been around for quite some time already. And
it all eventually gets converted to a stream of text in some language
anyway, and that to a stream of bytes in machine language, so hey!,
perhaps it's time we communicate using just jpgs and emoticons as well... :P
I for one find some things much easier to write about than to drag
balloons, boxes and arrows around and apply meaning by combos,
radiobuttons and so on, besides messing with a UI looking like that of a
top aircraft...
BTW, perhaps you'd be interested in this nutjob and his take on the
future of computers and programming:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/09/cosa-new-kind-of-programming-part-i.html
I still find much simpler writing a textual while loop though... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
