Re: One language environment don't have future

["AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>]

"Kevin Cline" <kcline17@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba162549.0302061237.919b409@posting.google.com...
> Karel Miklav <karel@inetis.spppambait.com> wrote in message
news:<nrv0a.654$wK6.41205@news.siol.net>...
> > Stephen Leake wrote:
> >  > UML is just another "computer tongues". It's partly graphical, but
> >  > that's not really such a big deal!
> >
> > The IT tower of Babel may never be built, but UML and tools around it
> > are a step forward.
>
> The software development community seems to disagree.
> After many years on the market, graphical programming systems
> are still not widely used.

And not surprisingly. Compare it with normal languages:
Historically, they seem to have migrated from pictorials
to hieroglyphics to alphabet and plain text. The reason?
Well, more flexibility, generality and more expressive power.
Try to come up with a picture for the previous sentence
for example ...

For some reason, computerese seems to be going
in exactly the opposite way - having started with a sort
of literate language it now drifts more and more towards
simple [not to say stupid] pictures.

[...]

> Well, considering that most of the information in books is currently
> textual, and has been for many centuries, it seems unlikely that
> pictorial representations of program logic will prove superior
> within our lifetimes.

Also, attempts to do that have been made decades ago:
Block diagrams anyone? I'm still waiting for a compiler
or IDE to draw that diagram and have the code generated
which would be equivalent to say a few hundred classes
written in text [well, I'm not - sarcasm y'know]