Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Boulder Hackerspace Public
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion project concept
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Peter Klipfel  
View profile  
 More options Apr 19 2012, 3:29 pm
From: Peter Klipfel <pe...@klipfel.me>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:29:50 -0600
Local: Thurs, Apr 19 2012 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [BHS Public] Re: project concept
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Someone previously brought up using visual programming using the kinect or
something.  I think that if you wanted to make a programming language that
could be used for audible programming, the language paradigm should shift
away from the ones that use text files and towards the ones that use jigsaw
puzzles and visual elements for programming.  The first ones that comes to
mind are MaxMSP (and i think PureData is visual as well) which are visual
programming environments.  I think that the shift needs to be even farther
than that though.  I was thinking recently about what the best way to
present data audibly is.  For me, I would prefer to be able to build a
"language" out of sounds of my choosing.  Rather than trying to represent
code in words, we could represent it in user defined (or language defined)
sounds.  Saying "semicolon" is frustratingly long.  There would be
a separate skill involved programming with such languages, but so it is
with all languages.  The user would end up listening to a type of music to
program, and then input code by speaking.  This could be followed by a
response from the program.  Perhaps the programming could be done by motion
using feedback from the motion of an individual.  This could be translated
to text if someone else needed to read it.

Seems like a fun challenge!

Peter

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Bitreaper <bitreaper.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> frustrating.

> 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.

> Bit.

> 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


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google