Honestly people can read and process text much easier then they can follow active visual nodes and lines. And I'm not talking about an abstract diagram; we are talking about visually designing something detailed enough to be executable. I think most people imagine visual programming based on pretty high-level abstractions but that's not the reality of programming.
Anything even moderately complex is too big to see all at once but could easily fit on a few screens of text. Making changes is even worse. I can easily move to the top of this paragraph and add another paragraph (which I just did). Have you ever tried moving around 20 visual nodes? Almost impossible to do easily. I just re-wrote a few sentences; easily 6 clicks and typing in a visual environment.
I am the first person to admit that visual programming goes wrong about 95% of the time, but it doesn't have to... also nobody is expecting everyone to swap out their tools for statebox haha
I definitely want a good demo video on the page.
but listen, I get it, I tried literally 50 different such tools, they all suck. Nobody in their sane mind decides to write one if you don't have a good reason. Certainly not in Idris :-)
but we have good reasons:
1) compositional theories of diagrams exists 2) such diagrams can express many "topologically equivalent" expression in the same diagram, this is a huge win! and very different from (AFAIK) all existing node-based editors 3) use cases in decentralised computing require fault-free tools that work like this
but really, I think generally applicable usable 2d-syntax exists...
But fair enough, I hear this a lot.
OTOH, a side-effect of working categorically is that we really assume very little, so we can apply the system is many things (at least the core doesn't restrict us, of course you still need to write code etc).
this is unlike all other systems which are domain specific.
you should think of it much more like an alternative syntax for bits of constrained Haskell code... anyway, thnx for the feedback, I am mainly surprised to see this on HN =)
but I come pretty much from the same standpoint: that visual programming sucks; but it doesn't have to be, that is what we are trying to demonstrate.