From: David Masover <ninja@...>
Date: 2009-08-06T01:07:13+09:00
Subject: Re: How Come Ruby is Text-Oriented?

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 03:58:34 am Mike Stephens wrote:
> David Masover wrote:
> > You can see some of that with Visual Basic, though it isn't truly
> > "visual" in
> > the sense being discussed here
>
> Visual Basic is a good example of an attempt to be more integrated -
> automatically naming methods, syntax help, screen painting, debuggers
> etc. I guess all these are available for Ruby but it's a bit like
> building a plane in your garage just from some drawings, rather than
> picking it up from the salesman.

On the other hand, Visual Basic also requires these things. At the very least, 
I know of no way to write a simple console app in Visual Basic, and even if I 
could, I doubt it would be very portable.

Also, I would argue the main advantage ruby has here is syntax that doesn't 
suck. I can say this with some confidence, as I don't know anyone who actually 
prefers VB, and the only people who really seem down on Ruby syntax are either 
people sophisticated enough to actually critique syntax design, or they just 
prefer Lisp.

> I doubt visual systems are faster than an expert textual programmer but
> it's interesting that the expert is still the focus of attention

I think it's mostly because this is the kind of thing that demands expertise.

Put another way: Specific programming, like Excel or Access, can be made 
accessible. General-purpose programming does require a bit of an expert -- to 
take everyone's favorite analogy, it's possible that building real software is 
like building a car engine -- for the most part, you're talking about experts 
and enthusiasts. No one's going to build a car in their garage, just to take 
them down the block and avoid buying a real car.

> Mind you, I don't know why I'm saying this - all our jobs are going to
> India as it is; we don't want to lose any more.

I think for the same reason I would -- to improve things generally. To advance 
the state of the art. Maybe we'll lose our jobs, and have to invent new ones, 
but overall, over time, things get better.

One of the ways things get better is by eliminating jobs we don't need. Hiring 
a secretary just to look pretty and type is pretty much obsolete, now that 
_everyone_ can type.

I don't think it can be done, easily. I think that every attempt at it is a 
disaster waiting to happen. Here's an example:

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Customer-Friendly_System.aspx

More relevantly, even tools you might consider sane, like a spreadsheet, 
inevitably get horribly abused:

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Excel_Worm.aspx