I have to agree. I guess the only reasonable application for graphical languages is domain specific languages, and even then they need to provide a significant benefit over any text based alternative to outweight the tooling incompatibilities you mentioned.
Except there’s Simulink, which has been around since the 80’s, and is anything but a failure. For a few specific usecases, like modeling complex physical systems and developing control algorithms for them, it’s far better than any traditional text based language. Especially when it comes to maintainability of that code.
Though I have to admit that if you try to use it as a general programming language, you’ll learn that while that’s possible, it’s also very painfull. And even while implementing said control algorithms you’ll occasionally run on to some bits of logic that prove to be annoyingly difficult to implement with it compared to any text based language.
Isn’t writing tests with AI like a really bad idea? I mean, the whole point of writing separate tests is hoping that you won’t make the same mistakes twice, and therefore catch any behavior in the code that does not match your intent. But If you use an LLM to write a test using said code as context (instead of the original intent you would use yourself), there’s a risk that it’ll just write a test case that makes sure the code contains the wrong behavior.
Okay, it might still be okay for regression testing, but you’re still missing most of the benefit you’d get by writing the tests manually. Unless you only care about closing tickets, that is.