A system with "an IDE that could convert 'natural English' to something like C++ code" would require two translators: (1) the "English to C++ converter" and (2) the "C++ to machine code" compiler. Our Plain English system requires only one translator: the "English to machine-code" compiler. The latter system, with "fewer moving parts", is thus easier to explain and for that reason is a better instructional tool.What I am struggling to understand is why does this require a programming language? Wouldn't a compiler that could interpret or an IDE that could convert "natural English" to something like C++ code be a much better instructional tool?
The two-step system would also send the wrong message to the student: it would give the impression that "real" programming is accomplished with esoteric languages like C++ and that English is suitable only for beginners and end users.
Besides, a hundred years from now, C++ will (hopefully) be gone and forgotten. But English will most likely survive. So the more code we can create in English, the longer our code is likely to endure.
Have you seen our original (albeit somewhat overly optimistic) Manifesto? www.osmosian.com/manifesto.pdf
Yeah, my son and I use "Join Me" all the time to commune from a distance. But it's just not as handy (or as fun) as actually being in the same physical room. There's just something good and solid and inspirational about working face-to-face with someone else.Also, Gerry, I'd really work on your sales pitch, especially with regards as to what you need the money for. And, I'd invest in some kind of screen sharing program. It is a lot cheaper than moving to Ohio.
And I'm not sure exclusively virtual and isolated communications are a healthy thing in the long run. I'm pretty sure if Mark and I ever got together with our families for a spirited discussion of programming languages, we'd make more progress toward agreement in a day than we can make on a forum like this in a year.