Nick Craig-Wood wrote: > Frederic Rentsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It was called a flow chart. Flow charts could be translated directly >> into machine code written in assembly languages which had labels, tests >> and jumps as the only flow-control constructs. When structured >> programming introduced for and while loops they internalized labeling >> and jumping. That was a great convenience. Flow-charting became rather >> obsolete because the one-to-one correspondence between flow chart and >> code was largely lost. >> > > The trouble with flow charts is that they aren't appropriate maps for > the modern computing language territory. > Yes. That's why they aren't used anymore. > I was born and bred on flow charts and I admit they were useful back > in the days when I wrote 1000s of lines of assembler code a week. > > Now-a-days a much better map for the the territory is pseudo-code. > Python is pretty much executable pseudo-code anway > Yes. But it's the "executable pseudo code" our friend has problems with. So your very pertinent observation doesn't help him. My suggestion to use a flow chart was on the impression that he didn't have a clear conception of the solution's logic and that the flow chart was a simple means to acquire that clear conception. I like flow charts because they exhaustively map states and transitions exactly the way they connect---solution imaging as it were. If they can help intelligence map a territory it is no issue if they don't map it themselves very well.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
