> The syntax complexity will just be moved into a visual layer, it doesn't disappear.
You missed the part where our brain is much better prepared to deal with visual complexity than textual. It's like moving the job to a specialized hardware co-processor.
Even if the inherent complexity of the task is the same, the environment would allow to do it way more efficiently. And we could also redesign the languages and IDEs to take advantage and reduce non-inherent complexity as well. See for example the Cursorless demo linked above, where you can target specific bits of code by naming a letter rather than navigating to them with arrow keys or the mouse.
> You missed the part where our brain is much better prepared to deal with visual complexity than textual.
Citation needed.
Text is also a visual representation of language. If you want symbols instead of letters to represent logic you basically end up with hieroglyph like system, a logographic one.
Visual representation is not logical, it works according to gestalt principles. [1] Visual improvements would not be used to represent the program logic but secondary notation to improve and accelerate understanding. [2]
The metaphor would be using a graphics card for rendering the scene and the CPU for the game logic. Without a graphic card, your rendering options are extremely limited.
The syntax complexity will just be moved into a visual layer, it doesn't disappear.
> VR with 3D representations of code as, I dunno, pipes, gears, something like that?
Those 3D representations will just generate some code again, adding another layer of complexity to the debugging process?