Re: simple vs complex languages

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
16 May 2003 17:41:45 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
Re: simple vs complex languages thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages bear@sonic.net (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages bear@sonic.net (2003-05-12)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-14)
Re: simple vs complex languages bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-05-15)
Re: simple vs complex languages lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-05-15)
Re: simple vs complex languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-05-16)
Re: simple vs complex languages dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2003-05-16)
Re: simple vs complex languages tenger@iSeries-guru.com (Terrence Enger) (2003-05-16)
Re: simple vs complex languages alexc@std.com (Alex Colvin) (2003-05-16)
Re: simple vs complex languages eas-lab@absamail.co.za (2003-05-18)
Re: simple vs complex languages jcrens@earthlink.net (Jack Crenshaw) (2003-05-24)
Re: simple vs complex languages jcrens@earthlink.net (Jack Crenshaw) (2003-05-24)
[19 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 May 2003 17:41:45 -0400
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 03-04-095 03-04-112 03-05-006 03-05-065
Keywords: design, visual, comment
Posted-Date: 16 May 2003 17:41:45 EDT

Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org> writes:
|> I used to take an interest in what at one time were called "visual
|> languages" (before Microsoft so brutishly usurped the term). There were
|> a few novel ones, but more common were applications that allowed user
|> customization by way of a graphical representation of modules and wires.
|> The earliest I am aware of was the "language" for programming the Evans
|> & Sutherland PS 300 graphics workstation.


Could be, but some of the flowchart conventions definitely count as a
language of sorts. They were not, of course, converted to machine
code automatically - but they WERE converted algorithmically, so it
could in theory have been done.


|> Inspired by what I was learning at the time about functional programming
|> languages and type systems, I convinced myself that the language of
|> modules-and-wires could be extended with just a few choice visual
|> metaphors to gain all the expressiveness of a textual programming language.


Hmm. A lot of people have tried and failed. Yes, I think that you
could handle the simpler sorts of pure functional language that way,
but they aren't very flexible, expressive or even useful as general
purpose programming languages.


|> Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to fully persue the idea.


A pity. If you COULD do that, it would be a breakthrough.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
[All the flowcharts I ever used were made mechanically from the code, not
the other way around. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.