The product here is the book, not software (yet). You can download and read it.

Huh. Does this make any sense to anyone but you though? Why would someone read a book about something that doesn’t exist when they can choose to read any one of millions of books about things that do?

Have you heard the expression “putting the cart before the horse”? I just don’t see the logic here.

For us, the goal is getting early feedback and potentially get into discussions to see where the idea stands. Benefits for others depend on their specific areas of interest. For example, people who work in areas of visual programming, low-code and AI code generation will be interested to know what new ideas impacting their domain come to light.

There is nothing preventing release of an idea before finalizing implementation. We are not the first going this route and I am sure there will be more after us. Like everything else, it has its cons and pros.

The core principle of Pipe is that it is not trying to replace text-based languages. There will always be areas where text is better. What Pipe is doing is visualizing structures on top of textual languages. It means that mouse manipulations in Pipe are going to be significantly less intensive because Pipe does not try to implement x=x+1 visually (I think it is the key mistake in majority of existing VPLs including LabVIEW and hence physical fatigue). What Pipe does is encapsulating non-visual code that does x=x+1 into a reusable visual element.

Also, AI can generate textual code calculating x=x+1. It means we mostly do not even need to touch textual code - AI will do it for us perfectly. All we need to do is converting AI-generated code into visual components for composing visual workflows.

To sum up, AI and visual programming create a perfect synergy: AI generates code and visual programming composes generated fragments into visual components. This should minimize physical efforts needed to manipulate visual workflows as devs are going to work only on high (visual) level of abstractions while AI will be providing low (text-based) abstractions.

Sorry to hear you are disappointed.

The book itself IS the documentation. In fact, there is a "Hello world!" example of Pipe diagram in the book, which can be downloaded for FREE from Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Regarding the non-readable language of our article - we will fix the problem by polishing the language. Sorry about that. However, I would like to note the fact that article is hard to read is evidence contrary to AI generation which would definitely generate a pretty polished text.

For your convenience, we just added a link with a PDF of a book preview - please find it at the end of the posting.

Sadly the amazon kindle version is not readable by their kindle web reader - tells me to download android or ios version of kindle :(

How is it real if it only exists as a spec in a book? Is there a compiler? Is there an editor?

It is real in terms of the language design. However, this is a pretty complex and sophisticated visual languages so it will take time to implement it.

So, not real then. PS: You can't get a patent unless you can show how to make it real. Not how it "would" work but how it does work.

But TBH, I'm with the rest that say this kind of visual programming is DOA for most applications.

I like the idea, and am excited to see an experimental implementation. You will have to ignore many haters who don't realize that Excel is the most popular programming language in the world. "Stop writing dead programs."