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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 205028643 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <32A4659D.347A@shef.ac.uk> <32A71BC6.2D857063@arscorp.com> followup-to: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1996-12-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <599g39$l5v@gaia.ns.utk.edu> mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: > Tom Bushell (tbushell@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote: > : On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:45:47 -0800, Tansel Ersavas > : wrote: > > : >I think, we can now show people how visual programming can really bump > : >up their productivity. It also accelerates learning, and promotes more > : >high level thinking. Visual programming is to textual programming what > : >is textual programming to assembly language. > > : Good analogy. > > Is it really? Typically, no. > Can a painting communicate subtle ideas as clearly as literature? In general, no. Also, they don't convey abstract ideas too well either. And it is a well known problem that it is rather difficult to convey information consisting of many dimensions (facets) visually that does not lose semantic content. 3D even 4D, not too much a problem. 100-D? Infinite-D? How about transfinite? These are all more or less trivial to capture algebraically. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com