[conartist6]

Your assumption is that visual programming and textual programming are disjoint, but I have not observed this to be true (necessarily). Being able to edit a program in a semantic fashion does not preclude its having syntax. I don't see syntax as a boondoggle to be eliminated, but rather the highest-bandwidth way we know how to convey information!

I think you're right that the end game of any successful attempt at standardization is integration with all those tools like Outlook, Slack, Discord, Signal, Word, Docs, Notion... The list goes on and on. It's strange how the presence or absence of political momentum behind a standard could change that from being "basically impossible" to "basically inevitable"

[vidarh]

I've assumed nothing of the sort, nor have I argued for syntax to be eliminated. Both wildly misrepresent what I've argued.

On the contrary you will find that throughout this thread my biggest issue with visual programming is the reverse:

That a textual syntax that maps cleanly to the visual representation is an absolute necessity.

The problem is no visual programming system has included such a system. They've either been only visual, or they've been visual representations of programs written in classical programming languages.

Nobody has come up with, e.g. a language designed specifically to facilitate new visual programming capabilities without losing the ability to cleanly roundtrip to text.

I tried and gave up. Maybe I'll revisit it again in retirement, but I really hope someone beats me to it and finds something that works.