[markbnj]

>> I can totally see a post-code development experience that mirrors how programs work

I can't, because how programs work is a projection of how computers work and how computers work is by doing math. The whole reason why we have been clawing our way up the ladder of abstraction for so many decades is that it's really hard to express "Which aircrew do I need in Seattle tomorrow morning" in terms of adding 1 to a value in a register. We invented these cool little machines that do math really fast and then made them so cheap and affordable that of course we started simulating everything that could be represented mathematically. I've been programming since 1975 and when I think back I can recall dozens of these conversations over the years. How do we free programming from code? Personally, I don't think we can. The code is all that programming and computing is. Just because we have managed to do so many things with our ultrafast calculators doesn't mean they can somehow be elevated beyond what they fundamentally are. It's like we want to somehow lift them up to be like us, and on just a little reflection that seems absurd doesn't it? You might as well expect it from a toaster or a crescent wrench.

[dmos62]

Hm, couldn't you make the same argument about punch cards? The abstractions you talk about translate to different mediums differently. I think text/code/string is a very universal and low tech medium, but I don't think there's anything about it that would make it ideal for working with those abstractions. And, let's not forget that there's a myriad of different abstractions, which to me suggests that there might be as many different ideal mediums.

[krageon]

Given that there isn't some superior visual representation of math, I think it is reasonable to say there won't be one for code - at least for a while.

[JoshCole]

There are superior visual representations of math as soon as you add specificity such that you can measure the difference between representations in terms of their impact or other property. Equation coloring according to semantics stands out as an example of this. Interestingly, this example already has wider adoption in code than it does in math. As someone who has tried to format a latex paper to have coloring and has not had to do the same for colored code, I can understand why. Yet if you look at KhanAcademy as an example, the technology lifts much of the burden from doing the coloring, so they do the coloring, because it helps to highlight the key ideas.

It can be a fun exercise and illuminating to go over equations you've written down and try to translate them to colored variants. The classification task forces your mind to more deeply engage with the equation and can improve understanding.

[dmos62]

I don't know man. You could say that engineering and architecture is just applied math, but blueprints are not math notation (and neither is code, by the way).