Structured editing - to be or not to be?
Structured editing is a topic surrounded with scepticism and controversy for the past 20 years. Some argue that directly editing the AST on screen is inflexible and inconvenient, because the constraints of always having a correct program restrict the programmer way too much. Others expect structured editors to be more helpful than text editors because the user operates atomically and precisely on the language constructs, concentrating on the semantics and not on syntax.
In summer 2004, my professor initiated a student research project - we started building a structured editor for C#. I took part because I was deeply persuaded that good structured editors can actually be built, and it was challenging to go and find out for myself.
As one of numerous confirmations for my thoughts, in 2004, Wesner Moise wrote:
...I see a revolution brewing within the next three years in the way source code is written.
Text editors are going to go away (for source code, that is)! Don't get me wrong, source code will still be in text files. However, future code editors will parse the code directly from the text file and will be display in a concise, graphical and nicely presented view with each element in the view representing a parse tree node. ...
I remember how I agreed with this! After three years, in 2007, the prototype implementation is ready - it became the result of my master's thesis. I still agree with what Wesner was envisioning in 2004 - with one exception. Now I believe that structured editors shouldn't (and can't) be a revolution - fully replacing text editors is a bad thing to do. Instead, structured editors should complement text editors to provide yet another view on the same source tree (internal representation, or AST).
As a result of my work, I'm convinced that structured editors actually are, in some situations, more convenient than text editors and providing the programmer with two views on the code to choose from would be a benefit. Just like Visual Studio Class Designer - those who want to use it, well, just use it, and the rest continues to happily use the text editor. All these views should co-exist to provide the programmer with a richer palette of tools to chooce from.
Hence, my first important conclusion. A program's internal representation (the AST) should be observable to allow the MVC architecture - many views on the same internal code model. With MVC, all views will be automatically kept in sync with the model. This is where for example something like WPF data-binding would come in handy.
As for the structured editor itself - it is still a work in progress and I still hope to create a decent replacem... err... complement for text editors. It has to be usable and there are still a lot problems to solve before I can say: "Here, this editor is at least as good as the text editor". But I managed to solve so many challenging problems already, that I'm optimistic about the future.
The current implementation edits a substantial subset of C# 1.0 - namespaces, types, members (except events), and almost all statements. If you're interested, you can read more at http://www.guilabs.net/ and www.osenkov.com/diplom - those are two sites I built to tell the world about my efforts. I also accumulate my links about structured editing at del.icio.us: http://del.icio.us/KirillOsenkov/StructuredEditors
Here, I'll just add one more thing. It turned out that it makes sense to build structured editors not only for C#, but for other languages as well - XML, HTML, Epigram, Nemerle, etc. That is why, at the very beginning, the whole project was split in two parts - the editor framework and the C# editor built on top of it. In some later post I'll share my experience of building frameworks.
If you want to know more, or if you want to share your opinion on this, please let me know. Thanks!