1. 35
    1. 25

      We are excited to continue experimenting with this new editing paradigm.

      That’s fine, but this is not new.

      Structured editors (also known as syntax-directed editors) have been around since at least the early 80s. I remember thinking in undergrad (nearly 20 years ago now) that structured editing would be awesome. When I got to grad school I started to poke around in the literature and there is a wealth of it. It didn’t catch on. So much so that by 1986 there were papers reviewing why they didn’t: On the Usefulness of Syntax Directed Editors (Lang, 1986).

      By the 90s they were all but dead, except maybe in niche areas.

      I have no problem with someone trying their hand at making such an editor. By all means, go ahead. Maybe it was a case of poor hardware or cultural issues. Who knows. But don’t tell me it’s new because it isn’t. And do yourself a favour and study why it failed before, lest you make the same mistakes.

      Addendum: here’s something from 1971 describing such a system. User engineering principles for interactive systems (Hansen, 1971). I didn’t know about this one until today!

      1. 10

        Our apologies, we were in no way claiming that syntax-directed editing is new. It obvious has a long and storied history. We only intended to describe as new our particular implementation of it. That article was intended for broad consumption. The vast majority of the users with whom we engage have no familiarity with the concepts of structured editing, so we wanted to lay them out plainly. We certainly have studied and drawn inspiration from many of the past and current attempts in this field, but thanks for those links. Looking forward to checking them out. We are heartened by the generally positive reception and feedback – the cloud era offers a lot of new avenues of exploration for syntax-directed editing.

        1. 3

          Looks like you’ve been working hard on it. Encouraging!

      2. 7

        This is an interesting relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSnnfUj1XCQ

        The major complaint about structured editing has always been a lack of flexibility in editing incomplete/invalid programs creating an uncomfortable point and click experience that is not as fluid and freestyle as text.

        However that is not at all a case against structured editing. That is a case for making better structured editors.

        That is not an insurmountable challenge and not a big enough problem to justify throwing away all the other benefits of structured editing.

        1. 4

          Thanks for the link to the video. That’s stuff from Intentional Software, something spearheaded by Charles Simonyi(*). It’s been in development for years and was recently acquired by Microsoft. I don’t think they’ve ever released anything.

          To be clear, I am not against structured editing. What I don’t like is calling it new, when it clearly isn’t. And the lack of acknowledgement of why things didn’t work before is also disheartening.

          As for structured editing itself, I like it and I’ve tried it, and the only place I keep using it is with Lisp. I think it’s going to be one of those “worse is better” things: although it may be more “pure”, it won’t offer enough benefit over its cheaper – though more sloppy – counterpart.

          (*) The video was made when he was still working on that stuff within Microsoft. It became a separate company shortly after, in 2002.

        2. 1

          I mentioned this in the previous discussion about isomorf.

          Here is what I consider an AST editor done about as right as can be done, in terms of “getting out of my way”

          Friend of mine Rik Arends demoing his real-time WebGL system MakePad at AmsterdamJS this year

      3. 5

        Right, so I’ve taken multiple stabs at research on this stuff in various forms over the years, everything from AST editors, to visual programming systems and AOP. I had a bit of an exchange with @akent about it offline.

        I worked with Charles a bit at Microsoft and later at Intentional. I became interested in it since there is a hope for it to increase programmer productivity and correctness without sacrificing performance.

        You are totally right though Geoff, the editor experience can be a bugger, and if you don’t get it right, your customers are going to feel frustrated, claustrophobic and walk away. That’s the way the Intentional Programming system felt way back when - very tedious. Hopefully they improved it a lot.

        I attacked it from a different direction to Charles using markup in regular code. You would drop in meta-tags which were your “intentions” (using Charles’ terminology). The meta-tags were parameterized functions that ran on the AST in-place. They could reflect on the code around them or even globally, taking into account the normal programmer typed code, and then “insert magic here”.

        Turned out it I basically reinvented a lot of the Aspect Oriented Programming work that Gregor Kiczales had done a few years earlier although I had no idea at the time. Interestingly Gregor was the co-founder of Intentional Software along with Charles.

        Charles was more into the “one-representation-to-rule-them-all” thing though and for that the editor was of supreme importance. He basically wanted to do “Object Linking and Embedding”… but for code. That’s cool too.

        There were many demos of the fact that you could view the source in different ways, but to be honest, I think that although this demoed really well, it wasn’t as useful (at least at the time) as everyone had hoped.

        My stuff had its own challenges too. The programs were ultra powerful, but they were a bit of a black-box in the original system. They were capable of adding huge gobs of code that you literally couldn’t see in the editor. That made people feel queasy because unless you knew what these enzymes did, it was a bit too much voodoo. We did solve the debugging story if I remember correctly, but there were other problems with them - like the compositional aspects of them (which had no formalism).

        I’m still very much into a lot of these ideas, and things can be done better now, so I’m not giving up on the field just yet.

        Oh yeah, take a look at the Wolfram Language as well - another inspirational and somewhat related thing.

        But yes, it’s sage advice to see why a lot of the attempts have failed at least to know what not to do again. And also agree, that’s not a reason not to try.

      4. 6

        From the first article, fourth page:

        The case of Lisp is interesting though because though this language has a well defined syntax with parenthesis (ignoring the problem of macro-characters), this syntax is too trivial to be more useful than the structuring of a text as a string of characters, and it does not reflect the semantics of the language. Lisp does have a better structured syntax, but it is hidden under the parenthesis.


      5. 2

        Jetbrains’ MPS is using a projectional editor. I am not sure if this is only really used in academia or if it is also used in industry. The mbeddr project is build on top of it. I remember using it and being very frustrated by the learning curve of the projectional editor.