but they absolutely didn't ? there are entire industries based around VPLs. if you go in most music conservatories in france, you can take a cursus in computer music where you'll likely be learning Max/MSP (https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/542ee0e5e4b0e1...) for instance just like you'd learn bassoon or trumpet.
Likewise, every year you can look for the twitter tag #nodevember where artists present what they did in mostly node-based VPLs, like the ones provided by Blender, Houdini, etc.: https://nodevember.io/
There are more LabVIEW job postings when searching on Linkedin on my country than Rust and Golang COMBINED, by quite a margin (2400 for LabVIEW, 300 for rust and 800 for golang).
It looks like there's a huge "dark matter programmers" effect at work here :)
I reckon most of professional programming done by people whose main job is not programming is either Excel or VPLs.
It seems weird to me, that the saying that visual programming has failed is being repeated still. E.g I think the film and game industries would be nowhere near the fidelity they are today without those tools.
Sure, it might be that VPLs are best used for scripting and not for implementing the core systems, but we are usually fine with such distinctions for "real" languages without thinking they have failed.
I read somewhere that the number of Excel "programmers" in the world is an order of magnitude larger than all the professional computer programmers combined.
Left out are industrial programming languages for PLCs. IEC 61131 languages include function block, ladder, sequential function charts and structured text. The first three are visual. Personally preferred ST as its closest to Pascal and Ada but FB is good for real time debugging PID loops. SFC is good for state machines.
I wish we had more diversity in editing environments for different tasks but all still on one IDE for debugging. Rockwell was my favorite editing environment but expensive and specialized.
It's also contextual to the crowd, houdini guys don't live in os/framework land where cruft, legacy and culture change the way people have to program things.. they just dataflow everything naturally and the tool is made for that (and the reward is extremely high).
Are node-based VPLs like Houdini Turing-complete? I've only used Grasshopper, but the sense I got was that it was not Turing-complete. If they're not Turing-complete, then I don't think "programming" is the right word. Computer-aided design would be more appropriate.
Creating something Turing-incomplete is not the same thing as using something not Turing-incomplete. For instance, the people who created Houdini are programmers. The people who use Houdini are not. I can program a dishwasher using a FSA, but that doesn’t make people who use dishwashers programmers.
Why does Turing completeness discriminate an activity between CAD and programming? So when one writes CSS or Makefiles they are programming; but if they write systems in e.g Datalog they are doing CAD?
The language of GNU make is indeed functional, complete with combinators (map and filter), applications and anonymous abstractions. Yes, GNU make supports lambda-abstractions. The following is one example from the Makefile in question: it is a rule to build a test target for the SCM Scheme system. The list of source code files and the name of the target/root-test-file are passed as two arguments of the rule:
The rule returns the OS command to interpret or compile the target. It is to be invoked as
$(call make-scmi,util.scm catch-error.scm,vmyenv)
As in TeX, the arguments of a function are numbered (it is possible to assign them meaningful symbolic names, too). Makefile's foreach corresponds to Scheme's map. The comparison with the corresponding Scheme code is striking:
It’s embedded in a Turing complete language, but you can’t prove theorems about programs written in a Turing-complete language (Rice’s Theorem) so the ACL2 language itself has to be limited to programs that can be determined to halt. The J-Bob language from the book The Little Prover might be a better example.
Whether or not it's Turing-complete is not all that important. The important part is whether or not Turing-completeness is required for what is being created. In the case of HTML and CSS, Turing-completeness is almost always not a requirement.
Turing completeness is not a requirement for any computational task that is guaranteed to complete, either. You only need it to add infinite loop bugs.
Just to be clear - the things you actually care about expressing in a program don't require Turing completeness about 99.99999% of the time. The main exceptions are things like unbounded searches where the code will only terminate if it finds a solution to something, and there's no a priori size bound on the solution space.
We use Turing complete languages as a compromise. Proving your algorithm terminates to the satisfaction of a proof checker is often more work than it's worth. We've decided allowing bugs that a termination checker would prevent is less work to deal with than satisfying a termination checker. But for my daily work, Turing completeness is a practical compromise, not a necessity for expressing the algorithms I need to.
Comments
but they absolutely didn't ? there are entire industries based around VPLs. if you go in most music conservatories in france, you can take a cursus in computer music where you'll likely be learning Max/MSP (https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/542ee0e5e4b0e1...) for instance just like you'd learn bassoon or trumpet.
Likewise, every year you can look for the twitter tag #nodevember where artists present what they did in mostly node-based VPLs, like the ones provided by Blender, Houdini, etc.: https://nodevember.io/
There are 200k posts tagged #touchdesigner on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/touchdesigner/ and that's only a small fraction of things
There are more LabVIEW job postings when searching on Linkedin on my country than Rust and Golang COMBINED, by quite a margin (2400 for LabVIEW, 300 for rust and 800 for golang).
It looks like there's a huge "dark matter programmers" effect at work here :)
I reckon most of professional programming done by people whose main job is not programming is either Excel or VPLs.
It seems weird to me, that the saying that visual programming has failed is being repeated still. E.g I think the film and game industries would be nowhere near the fidelity they are today without those tools.
Sure, it might be that VPLs are best used for scripting and not for implementing the core systems, but we are usually fine with such distinctions for "real" languages without thinking they have failed.
I read somewhere that the number of Excel "programmers" in the world is an order of magnitude larger than all the professional computer programmers combined.
Left out are industrial programming languages for PLCs. IEC 61131 languages include function block, ladder, sequential function charts and structured text. The first three are visual. Personally preferred ST as its closest to Pascal and Ada but FB is good for real time debugging PID loops. SFC is good for state machines.
I wish we had more diversity in editing environments for different tasks but all still on one IDE for debugging. Rockwell was my favorite editing environment but expensive and specialized.
The game engines Unity, Unreal, and Godot all have strong support for visual scripting as well.
It's also contextual to the crowd, houdini guys don't live in os/framework land where cruft, legacy and culture change the way people have to program things.. they just dataflow everything naturally and the tool is made for that (and the reward is extremely high).
It's a bit like c/simd vs APL
Are node-based VPLs like Houdini Turing-complete? I've only used Grasshopper, but the sense I got was that it was not Turing-complete. If they're not Turing-complete, then I don't think "programming" is the right word. Computer-aided design would be more appropriate.
The one I work on, https://ossia.io has ways to express loops and conditions in its visual syntax, which can get pretty close.
Ossia looks really interesting - I've wondered for years how the "timeline vs node graph" distinction could be erased.
Who uses it on the whole? How big is the community?
(I'm a developer on Open Brush https://openbrush.app/ and I'm really interested in hearing how other open source creative tools do things)
:) thanks !
it mainly targets media artists. here's a few shows / installations / artworks that used it : https://ossia.io/gallery.html
not super big aha, it's a fairly specific niche: people who got dissatisfied with e.g. Max, etc. and needed some form of timeline.
Are finite state automata turing complete? No. But any normal person would say that programming them is indeed programming.
Creating something Turing-incomplete is not the same thing as using something not Turing-incomplete. For instance, the people who created Houdini are programmers. The people who use Houdini are not. I can program a dishwasher using a FSA, but that doesn’t make people who use dishwashers programmers.
I guess I don't know for sure but I think Houdini is Turing complete. You can read, write, and branch on arbitrary data.
Shader graphs support loops which should imply they're Turing complete as well?
As a Houdini user and 20+ year professional software developer…
Yes, Houdini's node-based VPL is Turing-complete.
Why does Turing completeness discriminate an activity between CAD and programming? So when one writes CSS or Makefiles they are programming; but if they write systems in e.g Datalog they are doing CAD?
They're not? At least that's not how I see it being called
For GNU make, it depends on the makefile. https://okmij.org/ftp/Computation/#Makefile-functional:
The language of GNU make is indeed functional, complete with combinators (map and filter), applications and anonymous abstractions. Yes, GNU make supports lambda-abstractions. The following is one example from the Makefile in question: it is a rule to build a test target for the SCM Scheme system. The list of source code files and the name of the target/root-test-file are passed as two arguments of the rule:
The rule returns the OS command to interpret or compile the target. It is to be invoked as As in TeX, the arguments of a function are numbered (it is possible to assign them meaningful symbolic names, too). Makefile's foreach corresponds to Scheme's map. The comparison with the corresponding Scheme code is striking: (via https://stackoverflow.com/a/3480982, which gives a Fibonacci example)CSS is a great example. Someone who only engages with CSS and HTML would best be described as a web designer.
CSS + HTML is Turing complete:
https://lemire.me/blog/2011/03/08/breaking-news-htmlcss-is-t...
On the other hand, ACL2 isn’t Turing complete but can express many interesting programs: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/v8-4/combined-man...
Are you sure ACL2 isn't Turing complete? I can't seem to find a proof of this.
It’s embedded in a Turing complete language, but you can’t prove theorems about programs written in a Turing-complete language (Rice’s Theorem) so the ACL2 language itself has to be limited to programs that can be determined to halt. The J-Bob language from the book The Little Prover might be a better example.
There’s a whole programming paradigm here of languages that aren’t Turing complete: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_functional_programming
Whether or not it's Turing-complete is not all that important. The important part is whether or not Turing-completeness is required for what is being created. In the case of HTML and CSS, Turing-completeness is almost always not a requirement.
Turing completeness is not a requirement for any computational task that is guaranteed to complete, either. You only need it to add infinite loop bugs.
Just to be clear - the things you actually care about expressing in a program don't require Turing completeness about 99.99999% of the time. The main exceptions are things like unbounded searches where the code will only terminate if it finds a solution to something, and there's no a priori size bound on the solution space.
We use Turing complete languages as a compromise. Proving your algorithm terminates to the satisfaction of a proof checker is often more work than it's worth. We've decided allowing bugs that a termination checker would prevent is less work to deal with than satisfying a termination checker. But for my daily work, Turing completeness is a practical compromise, not a necessity for expressing the algorithms I need to.