
PUPPICAD - bryanrasmussen
http://pupi.co/
======
groovy2shoes
I don't get it. What am I looking at, exactly?

~~~
bryanrasmussen
every now and then people get the idea to build a visual programming language,
meaning that you don't have to write code but instead make a bunch of boxes
and arrows to indicate programmatic flow ( and probably have to write some
code inside of a box or something but at least the whole program flow is
really clear). Dr Dobbs used to always have articles highlighting
implementations - for example [http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-
design/visual-progra...](http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-
design/visual-programming-in-3-d/184409677)

My comment might sound like I'm against it, not exactly though, it's a
fascinating idea (the first time I saw anything about it I though wooooo, this
is the future!!!) but whenever I get into it I just find it awful and
confusing.

~~~
groovy2shoes
Yeah... I've heard of visual programming before, even played with Scratch a
bit some time ago, but I couldn't tell if that's what this was for or what.

I don't really see any advantages to this. I feel like once you get familiar
with your languages and libraries, typing is fast because you don't have to
search for what you want, you can put it from your thoughts into your program
directly, and everything you need to know is laid out before you. With this it
seems like you'd have to hunt through menus to hunt what you want (and they're
all white text in little blue boxes, none of them being visually distinct from
any other), and then spend time targeting it with a pointing device (and
they're small targets, which requires more precise movements and generally
more time to position), and then you can't see the values of the
parameters/fields unless/until you click on them (so, yes, I have a color
stacked on top of a sphere... what color? what size? where? that's three
separate clicks, as far as I can tell).

I didn't find the demo videos impressive or even interesting, really... I
couldn't tell if it was some kind of awful general-purpose programming
environment or some kind of awful 3D modeling program (I still can't tell,
actually, but it's got "CAD" in the name, so if I had to guess I'd go with
modeling).

Text also has the benefit of being a linear format, amenable to listings. It's
also a simple and standard format, with hundreds if not thousands of powerful
tools already available. It compresses well, and is decently small to begin
with. In most programs, spatial relationships typically aren't meaningful,
whereas linguistic ones are (or, at least, they _can_ be). In non-trivial
programs, a spatial representation of references can get ugly, messy, and
confusing _fast_.

I'm sure there's more, but I feel like I've made my point ;)

Oh, and, as is customary on HN, I'd like to point out how terrible the web
site is. I get the feeling this is supposed to be a product of some sort, not
just a weekend project, and, in that light: I've _literally_ seen Geocities
sites that looked more professional. Text-to-speech narration in the demo
videos will never sell me on any product. Now, I'm no good at designing web
pages myself, so I can sympathize. But when you've got a product to move,
that's when you need to call up a buddy who _is_ good at it and make a polite
request for assistance. The kind of impression your web page leaves on people
_does_ matter when it comes to making sales.

