A hypothesis: for live programming to scale beyond toy programs, generic low-level visualizations aren't enough. Instead, we need Live Literate Programming: better tools for creating *program-specific* views, which communicate our higher-level understanding.
-
-
i'm curious, does that include "visualizing the code" and "visualizing the data"? i'm bearish about the former, but believe in the latter
-
Also curious what you think of Glen's examples in the thread To me, these make it crystal clear that interactive explanations can be really helpful in certain cases -- the question is whether it can be made easier to produce thesehttps://twitter.com/Glench/status/1253739930360123401 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
First, you understand the tasks. Then you use cognitive principles to match the needs of the tasks to the best representation. For example, data visualization has done this well. We know why pie charts are bad, when to use a line vs. scatter plot, so on.
-
Some of us know that. Others... not so much...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I /think/ when you say "program vis" and "program comprehension", you refer to a globally-applicable, automatic process. Is that right? If so: That seems like a big assumption, when "program vis" could instead be a (fractally-automatable) crafting process like programming is now.
-
I am imagining a generic system, but generic != fully automated. e.g. data vis has a grammar of graphics that enables rapid construction of novel vis types. Today, all program vis just starts w/ standard web tools or canvas.https://twitter.com/wcrichton/status/1253758394982256640 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
cognitive psychology. PhD