Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's been done (Score 1) 876

by Rasberry Jello (#46193085) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Are We Still Writing Text-Based Code?
Great point and there's a lot to be said for the fact that humans are built for language as it relates to sounds. The difference I see when it comes to code is that the computer isn't interpreting anything, it's blindly following instructions, so any little miscommunication will trip it up. A human can understand what you say even if you leave out a few words or talk with an accent. There must be a more ideal way to turn a human conceived algorithm into computer executable code.

Comment: Re: Helix (Score 1) 4

by Rasberry Jello (#46182285) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why are we still writing text based code?
I took a look at Helix. Very interesting and a bit unfortunate it hasn't had more success. I can't help but wonder if the reason text coding is faster than graphical has more to do with our interface devices (keyboard vs mouse) than something more fundamental. Perhaps the proliferation of touch screen devices will have some effect. Thanks for the response!

Comment: Re: Ever tried LabVIEW? (Score 1) 4

by Rasberry Jello (#46182113) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why are we still writing text based code?
Interesting point. I have used labview and I agree it can quickly get messy. Perhaps it's a little too free form in terms of the visual diagrams. I can imagine that for more complex programs, textual code may be better. That said it seems like a graphical code generator could help non-coders develop simple programs to automate processes, etc. Thanks for the reply.

+ - Ask Slashdot: Why are we still writing text based code? 4

Submitted by Rasberry Jello
Rasberry Jello writes: *Improving upon what I posted yesterday. I really must know the answer to this question! It's been driving me crazy for years!*

"I consider myself someone who "gets code," but I'm not a programmer. I enjoy thinking through algorithms and writing basic scripts, but I get bogged down in more complex code. Maybe I lack patience, but really, why are we still writing text based code? Shouldn't there be a simpler, more robust way to translate an algorithm into something a computer can understand? One that's language agnostic and without all the cryptic jargon? It seems we're still only one layer of abstraction from assembly code. Why have graphical code generators that could seemingly open coding to the masses gone nowhere? At a minimum wouldn't that eliminate time dealing with syntax errors? OK Slashdot, stop my incessant questions and tell me what I'm missing.

+ - Ask Slashdot: Why are we still coding?

Submitted by Rasberry Jello
Rasberry Jello writes: I consider myself someone who "gets code," but I'm not a programmer. I enjoy thinking through algorithms, but I get bogged down in building code itself. Maybe I lack patience, but really, why are we still writing text based code? Shouldn't there be a simpler way to translate an algorithm into something a computer can understand? One that's language agnostic and without all the cryptic jargon? It seems we're still only one level of abstraction from assembly code. Why have graphical code generators that could seemingly open coding to the masses gone nowhere? What am I missing?

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.

Working...