That might need some explaining....not at program level, but rather at shell level (if that makes any
Interesting approach. Sort of a graphical IDE for BASH scripting.
...rather execute separate programs. Each library will be a separate program with the required function as an argument (together with the other arguments) all memory objects will just be files in a RAM disc.
Can't disagree with that. For example things like C++ have grown into massively complex languages that I don't believe anyone can master all the nuances of. What with all the other complexities you mention it's a wonder anyone ever starts down the programming road as a beginner.
One of the problems with modern coding is that there is so much to learn....
Exactly. And that is why the Pi was created to provide a platform with everything included that can get you from zero to quite sophisticated programming. The language of choice being Python.
The average kid learning to program would have given up at the first hurdle
That is a big question.
There are people out there who spend an awful lot of time creating free
software. How do they manage to monetise it?
It's meant to be; it's for total beginners, intended to help learn the very basics in an engaging and kid-friendly way. A good next step while starting very direct and graphical would be EToys,(http://www.squeakland.org/) which as it happens also runs under Squeak and thus ought to run ok on the Pi. I suspect that you could implement what you are interested in within EToys relatively simply.Scratch.... is er....forgive the pun, a bit Mickey Mouse Though it is probably the closest thing (conceptually) to what I have.
So what happens when all those kids that learned to do simple animations in Scratch, now want to create real programs?
Not all of them do... I think quite a bit of open source code is contributed by people working at some for-profit enterprise, who generated the code as a byproduct of the main activity. In other words they are not working full-time on the open codebase only for its own sake, but the code is in some way useful to some other larger (and perhaps closed) system, which is what actually makes money. The open code project exists because there is some advantage to having it open (eg. contributions & bug-fixes).NuIotaChi wrote:There are people out there who spend an awful lot of time creating free software. How do they manage to monetise it?
i just tryed to install it and after afew redirects i got thisHeater wrote: that Alan Kay lecture you posted a link to. But it requires Silverlight. God I hate Microsoft. Do you have a link to any other format?
but maybe its relay running IIS but for security they are pretending to run Apache on UbuntuForbidden
You don't have permission to access /moonlight/redirector.html on this server.
Apache/2.2.22 (Ubuntu) Server at http://www.go-mono.com Port 80
idk.. thaught it was M$ like silver light ?!Heater wrote:Why would go-mono.com not be running Apache and Linux?
Turns out that the Chrome browser on my Debian PC will play that video just fine.another link would be appreciated tho as im not having much luck even with the silver thinge
I think you should build it and see if users will come.NuIotaChi wrote: So what you're saying is that no-one needs it and that I should give up?
My guess was that its something like this: http://wasteddesigns.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/k2.jpgRavenous wrote:I have a hard time seeing exactly what you're describing, and whether the code produced will be efficient enough, or functional enough.
NuIotaChi wrote:If anyone has opinions, preference or experience with any of these, please leave a comment.
You asked for opinions. Sorry to hear they were not the opinions you wanted.NuIotaChi wrote:So what you're saying is that no-one needs it and that I should give up?
It isn't clear what this 'Brand New Graphical Development System'. is.Ravenous wrote:I think you should build it and see if users will come.NuIotaChi wrote: So what you're saying is that no-one needs it and that I should give up?
I have a hard time seeing exactly what you're describing, and whether the code produced will be efficient enough, or functional enough. But I haven't looked at the other graphical alternatives mentioned either.
Here's a test: assuming your system is complete right now, could you draw a chart (or whatever graphical language you invent) to describe your system itself? In other words, can it be used to write itself?
It's the calling convention that screws it up, and it's not just Windows. The system is extremely multi-threaded which is a total PITA when it comes to dealing with nested calls and stacks all over the place. My solution back then, was to create an operating system that handled calls in a very different way. Again, unfortunately, because high level languages handle calls and stacks themselves, I had to write it in assembler.Tzarls wrote:Hey, Nulotachi, I´m wondering.... why is it so difficult to run it under Windows?
I went down this route when I started exploring this idea 11 years ago. Such methodologies are fine when it comes to real time processing and simulation, but it doesn't necessarily allow complex programs.Tzarls wrote:Anyway, there might be some demand on the audio plugin world for something like this. Google for Synthmaker (now Flowstone) and SynthEdit. Also Reaktor and Max/MSP. People using these languages like the possibility of being able to define the processing chains without having to type lines of code (but Synthmaker has a couple of objects that enable the user to input actual code, even Assembler). Some of these programs are Windows only, some of them output executable files (or .dll files for using the mas plugins) and others just run the schematic from inside the main program . no export options at all.
Maybe have a look at the graphics processing market too.
I myself have been playing with this idea for some time now. I have a very basic prototype that works under Windows, Linux (x86 and ARM - Pi!) and maybe Mac OS (maybe because I don´t have a Mac to try it on). But my idea is a little bit different than yours - I don´t want to eliminate the text coding. I want to simplify it. My initial motivation was: "Ok, having something working by just wiring blocks together is great. But having to wire 10 blocks together just to define some math equation as a real pain. What if I could wire blocks that work the way I want because I wrote the actual code for those blocks?". Kind of a "graphical abstraction of an object oriented language".
If I ever get to get this thing commercial, I´d think of having 2 version: the free version (RPi edition, only runs under Raspbian and can access GPIOs) and the commercial version (all other Os`s). The projects built under one edition will run without change on the other. You should consider something like this. And multiplatform support is a must, IMHO.
I wouldn´t say forget about this. I would say "rethink your idea, then start from scratch".
I didn't open this thread with the purpose of discussing its appearance or functionality. The initial question was about how to monetise it.PiGraham wrote:
It isn't clear what this 'Brand New Graphical Development System'. is.
What do you have, NuIotaChi? It's graphical, but you haven't shown us any graphics. It executes commandlines? It doesn't produce compilable code? What can it do? Show us something. Scratch can do some quite complex things yet you think your offering is much more serious (less 'Mickey mouse')? Show us how serious it is. What are its features and benefits? Is it much easier to learn and use than Bash scripts? Is it much faster than Scratch? What functionality does it support - networks, serial, GPIO, graphics?