[seanmcdirmid]

Can you communicate in graphs? Can they be used to express metaphors or abstractions? You've just written a wall of text in your post that someone who doesn't understand English will find messy and incomprehensible.

Visual formats are great at some things, especially in expressing concrete concepts that are perceptible. They are just not great at abstraction, which forms the basis for most of our non-trivial programming tasks.

Functional programming is quite interesting because it is not based on our linguistic capabilities, but rather a very different form of mathematical abstraction. Incidentally, many people find OO easier to grock because it leverages our intrinsic language skills.

[pjackson5]

I might be out of my depth and not truly understand what is meant by abstractions, but I think the answer is yes?

Lets look at the example on the website, theres a node called cube. Isnt that little node an abstraction of a whole lot of other things? A more advanced visual programming language would allow you to access and modify what a "cube" is. You would be able to double click on that and be taken to another graph. This graph would be about the construction of a cube and would take input of width and create triangles in space to represent a cube. you could double click on the triangle node and be taken deeper, this time a node that takes vectors and defines where the surface is between them and sends it to the renderer. We could have a seperate graph to define what a vector is and the data structures behind it.

All of this for a simple cube could be represented as a huge tangle of nodes and connections, but we can condense it down to a single node called cube that takes an input of width. Having networks and sub-networks allows you to choose what level of abstraction you work at. Each of these things at different levels can be represented by a graph.

[seanmcdirmid]

Abstraction != encapsulation. The point is about the node, not its contents. What does the node mean as a metaphor? What is it's idea?

Language is a very powerful technology that nature evolved for us. We could not have this conversation with graphs or paintings...we need words! Many programming problems are also best solved with words, though you could definitely wire something up the old fashioned way.

[tunesmith]

Can't this same criticism be made about (word-based) programming languages? Programming languages communicate the what or the how pretty well, but not the why.

[seanmcdirmid]

I never said anything about why. Even if you are just instructing, do you care to see a wordless video or read an instruction manual? Actually it's not even that...which one is easier to write? The descriptive power of language is great when issuing imperatives; it must have been very hard to organize before language was developed 50-100 kya.

You can still communicate spatial concepts better with pictures, and maybe a hybrid approach might work, structured edited languages are very popular as vpls, but think about code with interspersed diagrams.

[peetle]

Exactly. The node is just a lambda - no reason it can't be expressed in exactly the same way.

[seanmcdirmid]

Lambdas are formal, not linguistic constructs.

[sparkie]

I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist: lambdas are a (written) language - the have symbols, morphemes, phrasing, syntax, semantics, pretty much all the elements to define a language. Just an incredibly small and concise one.

[seanmcdirmid]

Lambdas have definitions, but they have no communicative meaning to human beings. They have to be bound to words to provide us with a humane way of using them.

The lambda calculus is great at describing computation formally, but says nothing at all about programmer ergonomics. What we really care about is the abstraction capability of "node" or "word", the implementation is encapsulated.

[shotwell]

Then so much for graph based programming?

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/gremlin-a-graphbased-prog...