The timeline proves how idiotic it was for you to complain that Scott's dissertation wasn't as good as Photoshop (while his stay at Xerox PARC was SPONSORED by John Warnock, president of Adobe). Again: Photoshop was released AFTER Scott's dissertation. And a commercial product developed and supported by thousands of full time people over decades is in no way comparable to a PhD dissertation written by one person that is clearly labeled "Caution: this is basic research, not a proposal for a practical piece of software."
Do you also attack Scott's thesis advisor Donald Knuth, because Metafont isn't as powerful as Adobe Illustrator?
You're baselessly attacking Scott for his "exploratory research" that was completed BEFORE Photoshop was even released. So your indefensible position is that it was wrong for me to post his thesis to this discussion because his exploratory research wasn't better than a product released AFTER he received his PhD thesis from the guy you claim not to know, Donald Knuth.
It's ironic you'd criticize Scott for his exploratory research not being better than a commercial product from Adobe that was released later, since Adobe respects him enough to invite him to give distinguished lectures like this:
https://research.adobe.com/distinguished-lecture-series/
>The Adobe Distinguished Lecture Series brings our industry’s most eminent researchers and creative professionals to the Adobe campus for a lecture and full day of informal discussions. Sponsored by the Adobe Research, the series provides an opportunity to meet and learn from visionaries at the cutting edge of digital media.
>FEBRUARY 05, 2009. 12:30PM. Scott Kim (Shufflebrain)
https://research.adobe.com/lecture/scott-kim-shufflebrain/
>Scott Kim (Shufflebrain). February 05, 2009 12:30pm. Games for Visual Thinking.
>In this talk veteran puzzle designer Scott Kim will show you original puzzles that stimulate visual imagination. You will see magazine puzzles that introduce ideas is visual design. You will see animated ambigrams that playfully combine typography and illusion. And you will see how his new online game Photograb exercises visual thinking skills. Finally Scott will discuss what makes a good puzzle, and how games can change the way you think.
>BIO: Scott Kim is one of the world’s most prolific and versatile puzzle designers. He has designed thousands of puzzles for such web game companies as PopCap, Gamehouse and the Tetris Company. He is the puzzle columnist for Discover magazine, and writes the annual Brainteasers page-a-day calendar. His strategy game MetaSquares is now available on iPhone. He has designed educational games for puzzle toy company ThinkFun. Scott has a PhD in Computers and Graphic Design from Stanford University. He is now designing smart games for his new company Shufflebrain.
Do you really believe you're infallible? And that I and everyone else is infallible too? Or was that just your sarcastic spelling?
Which visual programming languages have you actually developed or even used? Or are you just all talk and baseless criticism for other people with decades more experience than you?
I worked on developing and documenting and programming in the visual programming language in The Sims, SimAntics, which worked well enough to ship in an award winning product that was the top selling PC game of all time, so a lot of people have used it (over 200 million copies sold, making EA over $5 billion), and it works quite well. So by any measure, that's at least one example of a successful visual programming language.
https://www.ladbible.com/technology/gaming-the-sims-franchis...
>The Sims Franchise Has Officially Made Over $5 Billion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-exdu4ETscs
>The Sims, Pie Menus, Edith Editing, and SimAntics Visual Programming Demo. This is a demonstration of the pie menus, architectural editing tools, and Edith visual programming tools that I developed for The Sims with Will Wright at Maxis and Electronic Arts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC52jE60KjY
>The Sims Steering Committee - June 4 1998. A demo of an early pre-release version of The Sims for The Sims Steering Committee at EA, developed June 4 1998.
Documentation that I wrote about the visual programming language in The Sims:
https://donhopkins.com/home/TheSimsDesignDocuments/VirtualMa...
Ken Forbus taught SimAntics programming with Edith it in his game design course:
https://donhopkins.com/home/TheSimsDesignDocuments/Programmi...
And I've also worked on developing other visual programming languages, like Bounce / Body Electric, and others that weren't released as commercial products. And I've actually used (and studied the visual code and source code and extension APIs of) a bunch of other visual programming languages, too.
https://medium.com/@donhopkins/bounce-stuff-8310551a96e3
https://www.donhopkins.com/home/archive/visual-programming/b...
Which visual programming languages have you used, and what did you use them for? Have you ever actually designed or developed any yourself?
So now are you finally willing to share any of your great ideas and experiences, since you admit that you'll never get around to actually implementing those ideas yourself? What do you have to lose by sharing them, then? And if you refuse to share your ideas that you'll never implement, then why did you even bring them up in the first place?
Not a misspelling. A misuse of a word. Can we move on from this?
>So now are you finally willing to share any of your great ideas and experiences, since you admit that you'll never get around to actually implementing those ideas yourself? What do you have to lose by sharing them, then? And if you refuse to share your ideas that you'll never implement, then why did you even bring them up in the first place?
The topic of conversation is viewpoint and in my opinion viewpoint is not an example of a good visual programming language as it's not even turing complete. I illustrated my thoughts on what a good visual programming language would entail. That is the topic.
Whatever your background is, great. Whatever my background is it doesn't matter. I will say it's not as illustrious as yours and I have not implemented a visual programming language for a best selling game. Either way credentials have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I don't care about the timeline of things and the real topic at hand isn't who made a better photoshop. The topic at hand is visual programming languages. I made a comment on my thoughts about viewpoint and what I thought about what a visual language should look like. It appears that you disagree with me except, none of my thoughts were addressed. I just mostly see credentials of everyone being mentioned everywhere.
I'm willing to talk about visual programming languages but I'm not going to introduce my idea to you because I don't know you and you haven't been very friendly to me. Additionally I only want to introduce it at a point in time when I have the resources to be very involved with the project if that ever happens in my lifetime. I'm not going to just give it to you so you can run with it.
Also it's not that great of an idea anyway, it wasn't brought up to be talked about, it was just "mentioned" is a better word for it. Likely it will never get implemented as I don't have have the time to get it working. Visual programming is an interdisciplinary field that requires expertise in programming language theory, user interface design and graphics programming. My specialty is just web, so while I'm learning those things on the side because I'm interested in those things, whether all of that coalesces into a visual programming language remains to be seen.
Scott Kims viewpoint is irrelevant because it's not programming. It's an editor for pixels.
I am contributing by telling you whats wrong with viewpoint and the ideas behind it. You're contributing by spouting off about everyones credentials.
We're done.
But I don't understand why you have wasted so much time and effort trying to convince me not to discuss it, when you could have simply not said anything at all, since you don't have anything useful to contribute.
If your problem is that there is too much irrelevant noise in this discussion, you have nobody to blame but yourself, because you have added absolutely nothing useful or positive or interesting, just a lot of useless whining. You've already said you don't care FOUR times, so stop denying that you care so frequently, or simply stop posting.
People who don't have anything useful to contribute, or refuse to contribute anything useful that they claim to know but want to keep secret because they don't trust anyone not to steal their idea, shouldn't mention their secrets in the first place, and shouldn't attack other people for contributing things to the discussion.
Stop complaining, and start contributing.
Now back to the point:
I had a discussion in 1999 with Jaron Lanier about the 3D tree node data structure (Swivel3D trees) and plug-in COM data structures in Body Electric / Bounce, and he raised some interesting points about visual thinking and explicit visual representation of data, which parallel what Scott was exploring in his Viewpoint thesis.
Jaron, who founded VPL Research, developed and used Body Electric extensively, programming real time virtual reality simulations and musical instruments by integrating data gloves, body suits, eyephones, two separate SGI workstations to render for two eyes, 3d input trackers, music synthesizers, convolvotrons, and other i/o devices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPL_Research
In case you're not familiar with his work, here is a classic 1986 interview with Jaron from the book "Programmers at Work" (which also interviews Scott):
>Today I posted the Jaron Lanier interview from his early days as a young programmer in California. Back then, this free-spirited guy was touting Virtual Reality to disbelieving stares. Jaron has become a great spokesman and sage for the industry, questioning where we are going and where we have come from. He is an author, computer scientist, and gadfly of the industry. You can read all about his recent work here.
https://programmersatwork.wordpress.com/jaron-lanier-1986/
>INTERVIEWER: What are you doing with programming languages now?
>LANIER: Well, basically, I’m working on a programming language that’s much easier to use.
>INTERVIEWER: Easier because it uses symbols and graphics?
>LANIER: It needs text, too. It’s not exclusively graphics. With a regular language, you tell the computer what to do and it does it. On the surface, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But in order to write instructions (programs) for the computer, you have to simulate in your head an enormous, elaborate structure. Anytime there’s a flaw in this great mental simulation, it turns into a bug in the program. It’s hard for people to simulate that enormous structure in their heads. Now, what I am doing is building very visual, concrete models of what goes on inside the computer. In this way, you can see the program while you’re creating it. You can mold it directly and alter it when you want. You will no longer have to simulate the program in your head.
Jaron designed the musical visual program (which Scott Kim cited in his thesis) on the cover of the September 1984 Scientific American on Computer Software (a wonderful issue, with many articles about programming languages and software by some amazing people).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/1984/09-01/
To draw a parallel, pixels are to Viewpoint as the Swivel3D scene graph is to Body Electric, and they both share the ideal that "the virtual world and the knowledge base were the same thing" and "it's user interface all the way to the bottom":
"I had always thought the swivel tree was ridiculous, of course, but on the other hand I liked the idea that the virtual world and the knowledge base were the same thing- that unity encourages the visibility and grabbability of the underlying concepts. I think the brain works that way- there isn't some barrier behind which everything gets abstract- instead, it's user interface all the way to the bottom! What I think would be the coolest long-term destination of BE would be extending the scenegraph so that it was as powerful a knowledge base as you'd want..." -Jaron Lanier
https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/swivel-3d
https://www.donhopkins.com/home/archive/visual-programming/b...
At 12:31 AM -0400 7/8/99, Hopkins, Don wrote:
Hi, Jaron. We've met briefly once or twice - I'm a friend of David
Levitt's.
What's this about Sun acquiring the rights to the VPL patents, and
Body Electric?
https://web.archive.org/web/20051217153424/http://www.advanc... Does Sun actually have the Body Electric source code? What version do
they have?
Does anybody at Sun even know how to compile a Mac program?
Last time I worked there (admittedly a long time ago), they were too
embarrassed to allow Macs in the building (which might make somebody
realize how bad Unix sucks in comparison).
Has anyone tried to rewrite it in Java?
When I was working with David at Levity and Interval, I totally
overhauled the source code to Bounce: porting it to the latest version
of CodeWarrior and the PowerPC, cleaning up C code translated from
Pascal, that no human had ever touched before, and just generally
re-indenting and adding white space so it was pretty to look at.
Then I implemented a new interface for plugging in DM's, based on
ActiveX (yes, ActiveX runs on the Mac). I added a new data type that
you can flow along blue wires: a COM object (aka a plug-in ActiveX
object in a shared library).
Then we made plug-ins modules that produced and consumed the new
plug-in data types, like strings and polymorphic dictionaries. With
these new data types, we were able to model very complex simulations
as nested trees of dictionaries, strings and numbers, treat
dictionaries as high level objects, pass them all around on wires,
reading and modifying them at will.
The thing that the original Body Electric was missing is a way to
dynamically model structured data like Lisp s-expressions and
association lists, which is now possible in Bounce, using
dictionaries. (The swivel3d trees just don't cut it for representing
"knowledge".)
Bounce still had the "M4" Director player rendering engine, but it
didn't do everything we needed, so I implemented my own graphics
library for drawing sprites, playing sounds, and stuff like that. We
used it to implement a simulation of Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Jackson
watching TV and arguing over the closed captioning stream.
A big fat housefly would skitter around the screen, land on their
faces, and tickle them into waving their hands around and
pontificating.
I just got a 400 mhz G3 powerbook, and fired up a 2 year old copy of
Bounce and the crazy Limbaugh/Jackson demo, and it still works,
actually like a bat out of hell! I ran into David and John Szinger
(another Bounce programmer from Interval) a few days ago at a 4th of
July party, and they really got a kick out of seeing the old demo that
we worked together on, still running!
I live in Oakland just south of Berkeley. Drop me a line if you're in
the bay area, and would like to see what Bounce has evolved into.
-Don
From: Jaron Lanier
To: Don Hopkins
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Body Electric lives?
Hey there, and thanks for writing!
Yup, Sun owns VPL and Body Electric, and my guess is that if anyone
looked very closely it would turn out Interval doesn't have rights to
Bounce. But no one is likely to look very closely, so let's forget
about that. (I don't think Sun is aware of Bounce or the work at
Interval.)
I had never asked what was done with Bounce at Interval- it's
fascinating to hear what you were up to. I live in NYC for the most
part, but I'd love to see it sometime when I'm in the Bay Area. Also
Chuck Blanchard lives in SF and you and he might want to trade demos
sometime.
There IS a community of Body Electric users. It is STILL building the
most interactive 3D virtual worlds of any tool (though Alice, from
Carnegie Mellon, is the other hot contender). That's SHAMEFUL! While
BE sucks in every other way, all the more recent vr design tools,
especially the vrml ones, simply avoid the problem of deep
interactivity. How could the community be so whimpy, at this late
date?
On the Body Electric side of things, there has also been some work
updating to CodeWarrior/PowerPC (shame we didn't share that work!), as
well as support for Quickdraw3D, OpenGL on the Mac, OMS, and some
other standards.
There have been some changes to the interface, but not as ambitious as
yours. The neatest thing is a debugger/tracer tool that is a pleasure
to use. Since BE is used mostly in 3D domain, there are also some
tools dealing with textures, lights, etc.
I had always thought the swivel tree was ridiculous, of course, but on
the other hand I liked the idea that the virtual world and the
knowledge base were the same thing- that unity encourages the
visibility and grabbability of the underlying concepts. I think the
brain works that way- there isn't some barrier behind which everything
gets abstract- instead, it's user interface all the way to the bottom!
What I think would be the coolest long-term destination of BE would be
extending the scenegraph so that it was as powerful a knowledge base
as you'd want...
I'd LOVE to see a fancy BE release, in JAVA, or at least spitting JAVA
out. The question, of course, is where the money would come from.
I've tried to talk Sun into an open source release so the community
could hack on it voluntarily (the source was included in the patents
that were granted, so it's actually already released by the US
government anyway, though only on paper). Unfortunately, Sun doesn't
want to do that. What they've said instead is that I can choose up to
six sites with free hacking privileges at a given time. Bizarre!
With so few sites, I think there'd need to be money to make sure the
sites stayed focused on it... You'd have thought Sun would know
better by now.
The body electric community is surprisingly NOT entertainment
oriented, though I and a few others still use it that way. There are
people hidden away who are still using it for ergonomic simulations,
simple surgical planners (because the fancy systems are too rigid to
model some situations), cognitive test rigs, and some work with kids.
You should know there was some tension about BE/Bounce at one point.
The problem was that Chuck Blanchard wasn't credited as the lead
designer/programmer of BE/Bounce when David brought the program to
Interval. Chuck's name was reduced in stature in the "about" and he
was not mentioned in some important semi-public demos at Interval. He
was also offered a pseudo-position to help with Bounce at Interval,
but without health benefits - and Chuck has MS and absolutely NEEDS
health insurance. I at one point yelled at the guy who runs Interval
(forgot his name..) about their treatment of Chuck- and David is
STILL mad at me for making a fuss about it. But I felt I had to.
So that's the scoop! Both sides of the mystery revealed!
All the best,
Jaron
Jaron on the web:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050212085044/http://www.advanc...