On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Bitreaper <bitreaper.n...
> First, I'd like to say that I admire your ambition, and I think that
> it's awesome and in the hacker spirit.
> I've found I agree mostly with what Tim has said, and wanted to add:
> Most coding, no, all coding I've come across in my entire coding life
> has always been an iterative refinement process. This means that you
> need to return to the code that was written (or spoken, which would be
> translated to your metasyntax) and ponder it. It means that as you
> learn more and more about your problem domain that you're attempting
> to solve, you refine what you were thinking and refactor/rework the
> areas where you were wrong. If this is spoken, that process becomes
> quite cumbersome I would imagine. "Strike that section out, no wait,
> only part of it, now write this..." I just can't imagine it being any
> faster than a keyboard, and can only imagine it being more
> You can prototype this today, no equipment or software need to be
> further developed. Start with a few programmers that know a language,
> maybe python due to it's lack of extraneous formatting chars (like
> curly braces), and talk through a problem while they type it out. If
> you can work on code that way, then you might have something to work
> towards. If it get cumbersome and starts bogging down, you will begin
> to see what your true issues will be. And humans are a whole hell of
> a lot more forgiving of gaps (assumptions) in your speech than a
> computer will be.
> That's my half nybble of opinion.
> On Apr 19, 11:38 am, Tim Mensch <tim.men...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/19/2012 11:31 AM, Free Beachler wrote:
> > > Are there any open, or known proprietary, 100% visual metasyntaxes
> > > that exist for a fully featured OOP language?
> > Why restrict yourself to OOP, btw? I mentioned Lua; it's
> > paradigm-agnostic, and can do OOP, but a lot of the time you can save
> > thousands of keystrokes by NOT doing OOP.
> > Tim