Recently I’ve been exposed to the idea of a visual programming language named subtext
I’m glad you like subtext. Me too.
I just had a big “update”. EDIT: I’m a little less sure now. See the end.
I found something to teach programming on an immediate level to non-programmers without knowing they are programming, without any cruft. I always wished this was possible, but now I think we’re really close.
If you want to get programming, and are a visual thinker, but never could get over some sort of inhibition, I think you should try this. You won’t even know you’re programming. It may not be “quite” programming, but it’s closer than anything else I’ve seen at this level of simplicity. And anyway it’s fun and pretty.
The important thing about this “programming” environment is that it is completely concrete. There are no formal “abstractions,” and yet it’s all about concrete representation of the idea formerly known as abstractions.
[I was excited because to me this seems awfully close to the untyped lambda-calculus, made magically concrete. The “normal forms” are the “fixed points” are the fractals. It’s all too much and requires more thought. It only makes pictures, though, for now. However, I can’t see anything in it like “application” so… the issue of how close it is seems actually quite subtle. Somehow application’s being bypassed in a static way. Curious. I’m sure there’s a better way to see it I just haven’t gotten yet.]
PS: Blue! Blue! Blue! (**)
** This is a joke that will only make sense if you’ve read The Name of the Wind: Rothfuss. If you prefer to spoil yourself, here, but buy the book afterward if you like it.
I’m glad you like subtext. Me too.
I just had a big “update”. EDIT: I’m a little less sure now. See the end.
I found something to teach programming on an immediate level to non-programmers without knowing they are programming, without any cruft. I always wished this was possible, but now I think we’re really close.
If you want to get programming, and are a visual thinker, but never could get over some sort of inhibition, I think you should try this. You won’t even know you’re programming. It may not be “quite” programming, but it’s closer than anything else I’ve seen at this level of simplicity. And anyway it’s fun and pretty.
The important thing about this “programming” environment is that it is completely concrete. There are no formal “abstractions,” and yet it’s all about concrete representation of the idea formerly known as abstractions.
Enough words. Take a look: http://recursivedrawing.com/
[I was excited because to me this seems awfully close to the untyped lambda-calculus, made magically concrete. The “normal forms” are the “fixed points” are the fractals. It’s all too much and requires more thought. It only makes pictures, though, for now. However, I can’t see anything in it like “application” so… the issue of how close it is seems actually quite subtle. Somehow application’s being bypassed in a static way. Curious. I’m sure there’s a better way to see it I just haven’t gotten yet.]
PS: Blue! Blue! Blue! (**)
** This is a joke that will only make sense if you’ve read The Name of the Wind: Rothfuss. If you prefer to spoil yourself, here, but buy the book afterward if you like it.
cross-posted here
Update:
See also: www.worrydream.com