Pehaps you should learn LabView.
It's not even a textual progamming language!
Too much typing in programming...
Quote:Original post by eastcoastsurferPetzold is an idiot.
Petzold has an interesting take on Intellisense and how MS is already forcing programmers down a certain path.
I coded this app to create programs for you. You just need to enter the description of what you want to be created. Please excuse the poor image quality, I haven't yet entered a description for a program to clarify crappy images.
Quote:Original post by Mattman
I coded this app to create programs for you. You just need to enter the description of what you want to be created. Please excuse the poor image quality, I haven't yet entered a description for a program to clarify crappy images.
Brilliant! Hahaha...
Most of the responses here have pointed out IDE features to ease development in traditional textual languages. However, there is no reason that visual languages can't function just as well. Several are even quite popular for certain tasks, such as Pd for music synthesis programming.
So far, it seems textual languages still win out in a lot of scenarios, but my personal belief is that this is due in large part to the relative immaturity of visual languages as a research field. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if visual languages prove to be more useful than textual for certain types of tasks, though I won't dare to guess as to what they might be.
For me, an interesting language might have a direct mapping between a visual and textual representation, but this seems like it could be tough to accomplish without making the language cumbersome or tedious. A better idea might be working towards easy interop between a visual language and textual ones.
So far, it seems textual languages still win out in a lot of scenarios, but my personal belief is that this is due in large part to the relative immaturity of visual languages as a research field. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if visual languages prove to be more useful than textual for certain types of tasks, though I won't dare to guess as to what they might be.
For me, an interesting language might have a direct mapping between a visual and textual representation, but this seems like it could be tough to accomplish without making the language cumbersome or tedious. A better idea might be working towards easy interop between a visual language and textual ones.
Mattman, could you link to that application? I want to make a game like WoW, only about 4 times as good. Thanks! Plus, where is the button to turn the description into sourcecode. Ok.
That brings me to a question which has been puzzling me for a while in Visual Studio. Why is the Intellisense in C# so much more thorough then the one found in C++? I barely have to type a letter when programming an application in C#, especially in Visual Studio 2005. Am I missing something?
Quote:Original post by barakus
That brings me to a question which has been puzzling me for a while in Visual Studio. Why is the Intellisense in C# so much more thorough then the one found in C++? I barely have to type a letter when programming an application in C#, especially in Visual Studio 2005. Am I missing something?
C# sports a clean, consistent, syntax that also happens to be a little suggestive for Intellisense in certain places. Also, the number of things you can do is fairly well bounded, with very few corner cases in the grammar.
C++, on the other hand, is a syntactic nightmare, where minor changes can cause radical alterations of the code's meaning. For example, delete the closing brace to a class in a header file and compile it's accompanying source. Check out the errors. Completely non-sensical, because that missing closing brace has mucked up the entire parse tree completely. That Intellisense works as astoundingly well as it does, particularly in 2005, is quite a feat of engineering.
I wouldn't say there is too much typing. For me, the hours and hours of typing are quite therapeutic. As long as I'm typing the application I'm not trying to run it only to find it doesn't work ....
Quote:Original post by PromitQuote:Original post by barakus
That brings me to a question which has been puzzling me for a while in Visual Studio. Why is the Intellisense in C# so much more thorough then the one found in C++? I barely have to type a letter when programming an application in C#, especially in Visual Studio 2005. Am I missing something?
C# sports a clean, consistent, syntax that also happens to be a little suggestive for Intellisense in certain places. Also, the number of things you can do is fairly well bounded, with very few corner cases in the grammar.
C++, on the other hand, is a syntactic nightmare, where minor changes can cause radical alterations of the code's meaning. For example, delete the closing brace to a class in a header file and compile it's accompanying source. Check out the errors. Completely non-sensical, because that missing closing brace has mucked up the entire parse tree completely. That Intellisense works as astoundingly well as it does, particularly in 2005, is quite a feat of engineering.
I'm not a user of C# but doesn't it use reflection so it can populate the intellisense?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
