In the field of Generative Design (GD), Visual Programming Languages (VPLs), such as Grasshopper, are becoming increasingly popular compared to the traditional Textual Programming Languages (TPLs) provided by CAD applications, such as RhinoScript. This reaction is explained by the relative obsolescence of these TPLs and the faster learning curve of VPLs. However, modern TPLs offer a variety of linguistic features designed to overcome the limitations of traditional TPLs, making them hypothetical competitors to VPLs. In this paper, we reconsider the role of TPLs in the design process and we present a comparative study of VPLs and modern TPLs. Our findings show that modern TPLs can be more productive than VPLs, especially, for large-scale and complex design tasks. Finally, we identify some problems of modern TPLs related to portability and sharing of programs and we propose a solution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KrügerM.DuarteJ. P. and CoutinhoF., Decoding De re aedificatoria: Using Grammars to Trace Alberti's Influence on Portuguese Classical Architecture, Nexus Network Journal, 2011, 13(1), 171–182.
2.
RockerI., When Code Matters, AD - Architectural Design, 2006, 76(4), 16–25.
3.
KolarevicB., Eternity, Infinity and Virtuality in Architecture, in: ClaytonM. and VelascoG., eds., ACADIA 2000: Eternity, Infinity, and Virtuality in Architecture, ACADIA-Association, Washington D.C., USA, 2000, 251–256.
4.
MaedaJ., Design by Numbers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1999.
5.
KillianA., Design innovation through constraint modeling, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2006, 4(1), 87–105.
6.
TerzidisK., Expressive Form: A conceptual approach to Computational Design, Spon Press, London and New York, 2003.
7.
LeitãoA.CabecinhasF. and MartinsS., Revisiting the Architecture Curriculum, in: SchmittG.HovestadtL. and GoolL., eds., ECAADe 2010 Conference: Future Cities: Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Verlag der Fachvereine Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2010, 81–88.
8.
AbelsonH. and SussmanG., Structure and interpretation of computer programs, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1996.
9.
MyersB.A., Taxonomies of Visual Programming and Program Visualization, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1990, 1(1), 97–123.
10.
MenziesT., Evaluation Issues for Visual Programming Languages, in: ChangS. K., ed., Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol.2 Emerging Tecnologies, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., London, UK, 2002, 93–101.
11.
ParkK. and HoltN., Parametric Design Process of a Complex Building In Practice Using Programmed Code As Master Model, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2010, 8(3), 359–376.
12.
AishR. and WoodburyR., Multi-Level Interaction in Parametric Design, in: ButzA.KrügerA. and OlivierP., eds., SG 2005 Conference Proceedings: International Symposium on Smart Graphics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 2005, 151–162.
13.
MüllerP.WonkaP.HaeglerS.UlmerA. and GoolL., Procedural modeling of buildings, in: ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Papers (SIGGRAPH '06), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 614–623.
14.
WilkinsM. R. and KazmierC., MEL Scripting for MAYA Animators, Elsevier, Morgan Kauffmann Publishers, San Francisco, California, USA, 2005.
15.
DingleA. and ZanderC., Assessing the ripple effect of CSI language choice, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 2001, 16(2), 85–93.
16.
FindlerC.FlanaganF.KrishnamurthiS., and FelleisenM., DrScheme: A Programming Environment for Scheme, Journal of Functional Programming, 2002, 12(2), 159–182.
17.
FelleisenM.FindlerR.FlattM. and KrishnamurthiS., The TeachScheme! Project: Computing and Programming for Every Student, Computer Science Education, 2004, 14(1), 55–77.
18.
PentilläH., Architectural-IT and Educational Curriculums – A European Overview, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2003, 1(1), 102–111.
19.
LopesJ. and LeitãoA., Portable Generative Design for CAD Applications, in: TaronJ.ParlacV.KolarevicB. and JohnsonJ., eds., ACADIA 2011: Integration through Computation: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), ACADIA-Association, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2011, 196–203.
20.
DavisD.BurryM. and BurryJ., Untangling Parametric Schemata: Enhancing Collaboration Through Modular Programming, in: LeclercqP.HeylighenA. and MartinG., eds., Designing Together - CAAD Futures 2011, Les Editions de l'Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium, 2011, 55–78.
21.
StouffsR. and ChangW.-T., Representational programming for design analysis, in: TizaniW., ed., Computing in Civil and Building Engineering: Proceedings of the International Conference, Nottingham University Press, Notthingham, UK, 2010, 351–359.
22.
ChokK., Progressive Spheres of Innovation: Efficiency, communication and collaboration, in: TaronJ.ParlacV.KolarevicB. and JohnsonJ., eds., ACADIA 2011: Integration through Computation: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), ACADIA-Association, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2011, 234–241.
23.
MillerN., The Hangzhou Tennis Center - A Case Study in Integrated Parametric Design, in: CheonJ.HardyS. and HemsathT., eds., Proceedings of the 2011 Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) Regional Conference, ACADIA-Association, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, 2011.
