Though I haven't endured the "spinning" as described in the OP, I do appreciate how the "shape" of text promotes or inhibits comprehending it.
While programming in C isn't especially difficult for me, writing/reading Scheme is far more satisfying and significantly easier to accomplish. It's certainly true that the visual "shape" of code contributes crucially to grasping what the code is supposed to be doing. But that makes sense for strongly visual learners for whom text is initially an abstract visual form. Extracting the verbal (auditory) meaning is effortful and possibly only partially successful.
Logically we'd expect such fundamental differences to underlie programmers' language preferences. I don't know, but it seems most programmers don't/can't see Lisp/Scheme code as visual shape, regarding it as a non-linear tangle populated by endless parentheses. The connections among brain-related factors and programming proficiency deserve greater scrutiny.
This might be slightly tangential but it's relevant to languages in general.
Even in "squiggly" programming languages, I find that I my favorite code is the code that I'm able to write "spread out". Whether it be through method chains or through assigning names to intermediary values (though only if the intermediary is still semantically meaningful) or through a series of pipe operators I find that this "spacing" of semantic units makes it easier for me to follow the flow of the program.
Though I haven't endured the "spinning" as described in the OP, I do appreciate how the "shape" of text promotes or inhibits comprehending it.
While programming in C isn't especially difficult for me, writing/reading Scheme is far more satisfying and significantly easier to accomplish. It's certainly true that the visual "shape" of code contributes crucially to grasping what the code is supposed to be doing. But that makes sense for strongly visual learners for whom text is initially an abstract visual form. Extracting the verbal (auditory) meaning is effortful and possibly only partially successful.
Logically we'd expect such fundamental differences to underlie programmers' language preferences. I don't know, but it seems most programmers don't/can't see Lisp/Scheme code as visual shape, regarding it as a non-linear tangle populated by endless parentheses. The connections among brain-related factors and programming proficiency deserve greater scrutiny.
This might be slightly tangential but it's relevant to languages in general.
Even in "squiggly" programming languages, I find that I my favorite code is the code that I'm able to write "spread out". Whether it be through method chains or through assigning names to intermediary values (though only if the intermediary is still semantically meaningful) or through a series of pipe operators I find that this "spacing" of semantic units makes it easier for me to follow the flow of the program.
[dead]