Agreed (except they don't need to be).
@Jason818: Text is more concise, usually, than visual languages because they are symbolic of some mental concept and if you have to draw a rectangle or something to define boundaries,that ends up being extra noise with no syntactical or semantic meaning, and instead, some label on that shape is what is actually important.
Intentional Software has an DSL editor where one can switch between textual and visual presentations and forms of interaction. Some notations are also more suited for some domains and are semi-visual.
Mathematica also comes to mind.
If you have to care much about "drawing" or "defining boundaries" then the implementation is not smart enough. You should only have to care about three things: instantiation (via e.g. drag and drop), connecting (via e.g. drag and drop) and perhaps commenting (via e.g. typing or talking). Graph layout perhaps guided by a logic engine with some domain understanding could help with automatically arranging objects in a pleasing and sensible way. [Easier written than implemented, of course.]
However visual programming is perhaps best used at a coarse-grained level in the form of workflows. Workflows are programs and they are presented in diagram form. They have sequences, branches, repetitions, events, etc.
So many programmers already use "visual programming".