> I still think it would be an abstract syntax tree
I agree. What I meant with my comment was that the visual syntax shouldn't simply be a direct visual representation of the syntax tree, because if that's all it is, I'd rather just write in a Lisp with a graphical tree visualisation generator.
I definitely like the idea of having many possible views of the code, where a traditional textual language is just one of those.
> a few examples come to mind
That sounds quite similar to what LightTable attempted to achieve. Its nice and useful and I want to see more of it, but I don't think its far enough, at least for a discussion on visual languages ;)
> it always reminds me to re-study the work of Douglas Englebart, Ted Nelson, Alan Kay, Seymour Papert, Bret Victor
Absolutely! They've been a major influence on my own line of thinking on the subject.
I agree. What I meant with my comment was that the visual syntax shouldn't simply be a direct visual representation of the syntax tree, because if that's all it is, I'd rather just write in a Lisp with a graphical tree visualisation generator.
I definitely like the idea of having many possible views of the code, where a traditional textual language is just one of those.
> a few examples come to mind
That sounds quite similar to what LightTable attempted to achieve. Its nice and useful and I want to see more of it, but I don't think its far enough, at least for a discussion on visual languages ;)
> it always reminds me to re-study the work of Douglas Englebart, Ted Nelson, Alan Kay, Seymour Papert, Bret Victor
Absolutely! They've been a major influence on my own line of thinking on the subject.