[ninetyninenine]

Right. I call it an isomorphism. You can translate one into the other and back. Whatever "other" form of programming exists it can and should be translatable to boxes and diagrams.

But this "other" form on first glance can look very different. There are no boxes and lines in C++ or python for example.

[PakG1]

Sure, but code has a level of complexity that boxes and lines abstract away. If you want to describe a certain level of complexity, you'll need code or something that achieves a similar level of capability. If you don't need that high level of complexity, often because you're abstracting complexity away, it's hard to find an alternative that isn't better than boxes and lines. If there's a better alternative, nobody's found it yet. Boxes and lines appear to be a final state to which all roads lead.

[yunohn]

I think you misread my post. Why would C++/Python not fit my description? Which languages do you consider?

[ninetyninenine]

No. I did not misread. I believe you misunderstood.

You’re saying c++ and python fit into a category of programs that is foundation-ally really just boxes and lines.

I’m saying that’s not the right way to look at it. Because you can make the opposing statement. You can say that programs that are boxes and lines are foundation-ally just text programs.

So because both contradictory statements can be made both aren’t really correct. There is no hierarchy. Boxes and lines is one concept and textual programming is another peer concept standing on equal footing. Both are isomorphic and thus translatable to each other.

The point of my post is to suggest that there are other concepts that occupy this equivalency space. Imagine a category of interchangeable interpretations of programming that are all translate-able between each other with no hierarchy. It’s similar to the space of human languages. All human languages don’t occupy a hierarchy yet all are isomorphic.