From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public From: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tom Bushell) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/19 Message-ID: <32b8a98c.2460442@news.nstn.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204849350 references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A71BC6.2D857063@arscorp.com> <32A82AFE.255A@possibility.com> <58bq8c$3n6@news.utdallas.edu> <32ABCB1F.5207@possibility.com> <32b016d4.3487487@nntp.interaccess.com> <32B125E0.7880@calfp.co.uk> <32b55196.1250002@nntp.interaccess.com> <32B65D6C.6F10@deep.net> <32b7181e.2647652@news.nstn.ca> <599g39$l5v@gaia.ns.utk.edu> organization: Telekinetics newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 18 Dec 1996 19:19:05 GMT, mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel) wrote: >: >Visual programming is to textual programming what >: >is textual programming to assembly language. > >: Good analogy. > >Is it really? Can a painting communicate subtle ideas as clearly as >literature? Sometimes more clearly, and more efficiently - although perhaps the ideas are less verbal. Think of the Mona Lisa's smile, Alanis Morrissette's expression in her videos, the sense of grandeur and isolation you often get from a single shot in a Kubrick movie... I think this is an artistic analogy, and I'm more comfortable with engineering analogies for software development (though I don't deny that there's a strong element of craft or art in SW development when practiced well). Most other engineering disciplines use visual representations as fundamental tools. Civil engineers use blueprints, electrical engineers use schematics, and so on. IME, a good diagram _is_ worth a thousand words. (Unfortunately, I haven't seen many good diagrams for SW systems.) The main benefits I see are quickly conveying larger scale structure, and connections and relationships among system components. Text is too linear to convey this sort of information well, although text is a necessary adjunct to most diagrams. I basicly agree with Tansel - programming will become much more visual in the medium term future. Text will still be required, but mainly for commenting, not for code. What makes a good diagram is a fascinating subject, but way off topic for this thread. I'm starting a new one on comp.object and comp.software-eng, if anyone's interested. -Tom ---------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bushell * Custom Software Development Telekinetics * Process Improvement Consulting 2653 Highway 202 * Technical Writing RR#1, Elmsdale, NS B0N 1M0 (902)632-2772 Email: tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca ----------------------------------------------------------