Morphic, dataflow and encapsulation

Ralph E. Johnson johnson at cs.uiuc.edu
Mon Jan 25 20:20:07 UTC 1999


At 3:56 AM 1/25/99, Hrefna "Gu•mundsdÛttir" wrote:
>On Saturday, January 23, 1999 6:56 PM, Andrew C. Greenberg 
>> I'd be pleased to be educated to the contrary, but it seems to me that
>> Jen's suggestion that graphics are always better for "really large"
>> programs, indeed, even "always good" for large programs need not always 
>be
>> the case.
>
>It may a bit 'strong' to say that graphics are 'always good', but can you 
>point out an area where this does not hold?

You have it backward.  People have been saying for decades that
visual representations for programs are essential.  The proponents
of VPLs and CASE tools make similar arguments.  UML is the latest
example.  However, there is NOT ONE EXAMPLE of a system that delivers
on its promises.  Very specialized systems like Stella or GUI builders
are certainly useful, and general purpose systems like LabView are
good for non programmers.  AVL is a nice system, but it has problems,
and I bet I could make a better system in Smalltalk that was text-based.
Andy's point was that, as a programmer, he had yet to find a system that 
was as fast and powerful for him as textual programming.  

I've used VisualAge, for example.  It is cute, and great for little
demos.  It probably helps people get started with Smalltalk.  But we
found that for big projects, it just gets in the way, and the one
large VisualAge project that I am working with has pretty much
abandoned the visual builder.

This does NOT mean that it is impossible to make a great visual
representation of programs.  It just means that it is hard, and
people have a right to be skeptical.  The arguments in favor of
graphics are very logical, but experience indicates that there is
something wrong with the conclusion.  The burden of proof is on
the proponents.  

-Ralph





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list