>The mindset of a PRG developer verses a visual developer are radically different.
>
>Micheal Angelo siad that the sculpture already existed in the stone, and all he did was reveal it. Some of the worlds great artists tell us the the imagage was already on the canvas and all they did was highlight it?
>

I tend to agree. I certainly visualize more than others I know. I think about how the user will use the app, while others start talking about how many characters to make the name field. I also feel that every line of code written is the number of characters in the line chances for something to go wrong.

While both have to be done, it seems pointless to worry about the name field length, until you know you need one. I've seen specks (what I call the little information usually called a spec which is just another way to say the specification is horribly shortened) which were just table and field name lists. This seems to me like calling a list of nails and 2x4's without blueprints and elevations a specification.

Maybe this touches on the "Why is development still so hard" thread, but programming seems to be a mismash of design, research, development, assembly, testing and debugging without standards about how any of these tasks are done. We have to invent many things on the fly, where the mechanic doesn't have to invent the spark plug, to build an engine. S/he just puts it together.

I've often wished for some way to construct software without coding. Flowcharting seems less valuable because it is neither what the user sees, nor what the programmer finally creates. For those who can't visuallize, a blueprint is problematic.

There are supposed to be software to build and test electronic circuits (for a toy robot), without actually making the circuit. There are CAD packages that let you see a toy robot. I've never heard of anything that combines all of this so one could visualize the robot, assemble the circuitry and see the robot operate in a virtual environment. IMO all software runs in a virtual environment.