[Greg Wilson] > (Footnote: check out David Scanlan's article in the Sept. 1989 issue of > "IEEE Software". Turns out that flowcharts are actually more readable > than pseudocode --- the research that claimed to show otherwise was > biased by (among other things) comparing structured pseudocode with > spaghetti flowcharts... One li'l bit of sloppy science, and the world > turns its back on something useful...) Oh, I don't know -- "visual programming" systems keep getting reinvented, so I doubt they'll be lost to us forever: executable flowcharts are at least as sensible as executable pseudocode (which latter Python partly aimed for). I'm old enough that I actually suffered many textbooks that used flowcharts. As I recall, they were absolutely worthless -- and in reviewing a few of them just now, I see that this assessment was far too generous <wink>. Lines crossing willy-nilly, dozens of single- and two(!)-letter "off page connectors", ... yikes! If the study used spaghetti flowcharts, I expect they used what was simply common practice at the time. I have seen a few good flowcharts, though, and they were cool. How about a "folding" graphical editor, so we could find & expand the logic levels of particular interest without losing the big picture ... oops-just-realized-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-1.6<wink>-ly y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4