Great point and there's a lot to be said for the fact that humans are built for language as it relates to sounds. The difference I see when it comes to code is that the computer isn't interpreting anything, it's blindly following instructions, so any little miscommunication will trip it up. A human can understand what you say even if you leave out a few words or talk with an accent. There must be a more ideal way to turn a human conceived algorithm into computer executable code.

I took a look at Helix. Very interesting and a bit unfortunate it hasn't had more success. I can't help but wonder if the reason text coding is faster than graphical has more to do with our interface devices (keyboard vs mouse) than something more fundamental. Perhaps the proliferation of touch screen devices will have some effect. Thanks for the response!

Interesting point. I have used labview and I agree it can quickly get messy. Perhaps it's a little too free form in terms of the visual diagrams. I can imagine that for more complex programs, textual code may be better. That said it seems like a graphical code generator could help non-coders develop simple programs to automate processes, etc. Thanks for the reply.