Achieving Flexibility in Direct-Manipulation Programming Environments by Relaxing the Edit-Time Grammar

Structured program editors can lower the entry barrier for beginning computer science students by preventing syntax errors. However, when editors force programs to be executable after every edit, a rigid development process results. We explore the use of a separate edit-time grammar that is more permissive than the runtime grammar. This helps achieve a balance between structured editing and flexibility, particularly in live development environments. JPie is a graphical programming environment that applies this separation to the live development of Java applications. We present the design goals for JPie’s edit-time grammar and describe how its implementation supports a balance between structure and flexibility. As further illustration of the benefits of a relaxed edit-time grammar, we present “mixed-mode editing, ” an integration of textual and graphical editing for added flexibility. 1

The Larch Environment - Python programs as visual, interactive literature

The Larch Environment' is designed for the creation of programs that take the form of interactive technical literature. We introduce a novel approach to combined textual and visual programming by allowing visual, interactive objects to be embedded within textual source code, and segments of source code to be further embedded within those objects. We retain the strengths of text-based source code, while enabling visual programming where it is bene�cial. Additionally, embedded objects and code provide a simple object-oriented approach to extending the syntax of a language, in a similar fashion to LISP macros. We provide a rapid prototyping and experimentation environment in the form of an active document system which mixes rich text with executable source code. Larch is supported by a simple type coercion based presentation protocol that displays normal Java and Python objects in a visual, interactive form. The ability to freely combine objects and source code within one another allows for the construction of rich interactive documents and experimentation with novel programming language extensions

The evaluation of a pedagogical-program development environment for Novice programmers : a comparative study

It is an acknowledged fact that many novice programmers experience difficulty in the process of learning to program. One of the contributing factors to this difficulty is the Program Development Environment (PDE). Professional-PDEs are those developed specifically for professional programmers, but are often used by educational institutions in the instruction of programming. It has long been accepted that such environments are inappropriate in the instruction of programming due to unnecessary complexity and lack of support for novice programmers in the learning process. Numerous pedagogical-PDEs supporting the mechanics of programming have been developed in response to this. A review of literature, however, indicates that very limited empirical studies comparing pedagogical-PDEs and professional-PDEs have been conducted. The current study investigates whether there are measurable benefits to using a pedagogical-PDE supporting the mechanics of programming in the instruction of programming instead of a professional-PDE. A comparative study of this nature requires a representative pedagogical-PDE and representative professional-PDE be compared with one another. The first part of the current study determines a set of requirements that a pedagogical- PDE should adhere to based on literature. A set of representative features for a pedagogical-PDE is derived by examining the features of existing PDEs in conjunction with the set of requirements. Based on these features, a pedagogical-PDE, known as SimplifIDE, is developed that implements the representative set of features and that meets are the requirements for a pedagogical-PDE. The second part of the current study is the specification and administration of an empirical experiment in which SimplifIDE and Borland© DelphiTM are compared with one another. A holistic approach in determining the differences between the PDEs is taken and three main areas are examined, namely academic performance, perceptions and programming behavior