Can a visual language be taken seriously?
Ask a typewriter if a great novel can be written with a word processor.
Most intermediate and advanced developers have come in contact with a visual language, and have understandably concluded that they are basic in nature or fill a niche, but are not geared to general purpose programming.
But is it because they are visual or by design?
As far as we can tell, Frog defies all previous definitions of visual programming. First, it relies heavily on familiar textual coding because, well, text is awesome. Graphics are aptly utilized for constructs that are harder or impossible to represent in text, such as images, complex object literals, SQL arithmetic, collections, and type relationships, to name a handful.