Before yours, there have been many products that promise to enable programming for everyone, many of these have been scams, utter failures or were just overly marketed mediocre software packages.
The things is, the way your video seems voiced to "sell" rather than "explain" what is going on, as well as the odd, or at least "unique" hacker aesthetic of the website makes it look very dubious.
I have no idea how to showcase a product like this the "right" way, maybe there is no "right" way, but I can certainly say that the aesthetic, big claims, confusing video and ambitious future plans give the project a bad smell.
There is a plan for a lengthier explanation video.
The intention of the video was to show that it can be done. Of course, some kind of explanation and training is needed for everything, I don't dispute that.
My problem with the video is that it doesn't show me what can be done. It shows me that the ball can follow the line and with some magical symbols and lines "other logic" can be "somehow" added. It didn't do anything to tell me what other logic is possible, nor did it explain what the symbols and lines mean. So I still don't really know _what_ can be done (besides a pong game) and I've no idea what most of the on screen stuff even is or means.
I need the money to develop it fully. If it was usable at this point, I would release it, no doubt. I want something out of the door ASAP, that's why it is focusing on 2D games first. That is feasible but still hard.
This is really not a technology in the traditional sense. The runtime itself is nothing new. The real thing is the UX, that is how programming can be made more efficient to do.
I believe if someone supports this, he/she supports the goal of this project, not the concrete implementation.
I love the idea of it... but the video makes it very hard to see how it works. I believe it's possible to show how this works without it actually working right now. I think you might be focusing too much on making it look good and polished, you need to just make it work, bare bones!
I believe it's possible to show how this works without it actually working right now.
Exactly! A short tutorial using screenshots to explain what stuff means, for example, would go a long way and doesn't actually require anything to be implemented as the screenshots could be mocked up.
FRP seems about right and I wanted it to look cool :). But no flowcharts, those represent steps. If you are talking about the logical symbols, they are not step based at all. Rather more similar to physically implemented logical circuits.
String example: if you have "foo" and "bar", both are a list of characters. Now, "bar" has a beginning represented by a handle and you drag that handle to the end of "foo". Very briefly something like that. Of course, not everything is set in stone and we need to try multiple approaches to see which one is the fastest.
