←back to thread

448 points nimbleplum40 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.25s | source
Show context
hamstergene ◴[] No.43565725[source]
Reminds me of another recurring idea of replacing code with flowcharts. First I've seen that idea coming from some unknown Soviet professor from 80s, and then again and again from different people from different countries in different contexts. Every time it is sold as a total breakthrough in simplicity and also every time it proves to be a bloat of complexity and a productivity killer instead.

Or weak typing. How many languages thought that simplifying strings and integers and other types into "scalar", and making any operation between any operands meaningful, would simplify the language? Yet every single one ended up becoming a total mess instead.

Or constraint-based UI layout. Looks so simple, so intuitive on simple examples, yet totally failing to scale to even a dozen of basic controls. Yet the idea keeps reappearing from time to time.

Or an attempt at dependency management by making some form of symlink to another repository e.g. git modules, or CMake's FetchContent/ExternalProject? Yeah, good luck scaling that.

Maybe software engineering should have some sort of "Hall of Ideas That Definitely Don't Work", so that young people entering the field could save their time on implementing one more incarnation of an already known not good idea.

replies(8): >>43565964 #>>43566001 #>>43566128 #>>43566274 #>>43566331 #>>43567105 #>>43567561 #>>43568375 #
1. Animats ◴[] No.43566331[source]
Constraint-based layout works, but you need a serious constraint engine, such as the one in the sketch editors of Autodesk Inventor or Fusion 360, along with a GUI to talk to it. Those systems can solve hard geometry problems involving curves, because you need that when designing parts.

Flowchart-based programming scales badly. Blender's game engine (abandoned) and Unreal Engine's "blueprints" (used only for simple cases) are examples.