|
|
|
|
|
by wdanilo
3080 days ago
|
|
Bret Victor's ideas are a very strong inspiration regarding where graphical interfaces could expand in the future. We strongly agree with his principle, that people need an immediate connection with data they are working on. This principle is one of two foundations on which Luna was actually built. We have described our thoughts in detail in our blog post here: https://medium.com/@luna_language/luna-the-visual-way-to-cre.... |
|
> Is this "visual programming"? No. The term "visual programming" has had a well-established definition for several decades, and this tool is not that.
> A "visual programming language" provides graphical representation and spatial manipulation of the program structure. (That is, static "elements" or "operators", analogous to the "code" in a conventional programming language, or schematic components in a circuit).
> This is not the case with the tool here, which actually represents program structure as a fairly conventional list of textual instructions. The only direct manipulation of the instructions is merely in selecting them for looping, deleting, etc.
> Instead, the tool provides graphical representation and spatial manipulation of the program data. (Dynamic or "runtime" information, analogous to the values of data structures in a conventional programming language, or voltages in a circuit. In this case, the data is a picture.) The program structure is built up implicitly by directly manipulating the data.
Luna seems to lay firmly in the former category rather than the latter: it is firmly steeped in writing code to manipulate and visualize data, rather than manipulating data to get code. There isn't anything wrong with that, but I see a lot more similarities between Luna and Latour's Quartz Composer or Sweeney's Unreal Blueprints than I do with Bret's systems.