| An extension of your argument might be that linguists have also failed these people, as modern languages are represented in symbols (expressed visually and orally). Try as I might, I am having a difficult time figuring out how to express the previous sentiment through pictures alone. Especially if I want to ensure that others interpret the intent of my expression correctly. Pictionary is a great example of that difficulty. And consider that the concepts expressed in Pictionary are calibrated for a visual medium. Symbols are precise and concise. Which are two good traits for expressing logic. The later trait is desired, while the former is required. Don't get me wrong, there are geometric proofs that are much simpler than their symbolic competition. However, that simplicity is on a case-by-case basis in my experience. Where the majority of cases favour symbolic. Although I admit potential bias on this point. When I think of documentation, pictures are a good way of giving an introduction to a code base. But when it comes down to expressing individual functions and interfaces, pictures can't beat code comments. And even code comments lose against simple enough functions. If you can figure out a good way to express general purpose programming visually, more power to you. There is probably a good consumer market. But professionally, I believe it would be difficult to compete with symbolic programming. And not just because of inertia, but for the reasons stated above. Finally, I don't think it is a matter of listening. I understand what it is like not to be able to express myself in a given way. But I also understand that I, like all people, have limitations. And I endeavour to work with people who complement, not just echo, my skill set. |