Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: RE: Flaw Charts
Message-ID: <1173@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Sep-83 11:00:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1173
Posted: Thu Sep 15 11:00:26 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Sep-83 17:30:08 EDT
References: ncsu.2332
Lines: 26


   First, RE people misreading jokes:
   I've had the same problem many times.  What I think is obviously
intended in jest is taken seriously by someone.  I'm reminded of all
the soap-opera villains who get assaulted in the supermarket by some
poor soul who can't tell tv from reality...

   Anyway, on flaw charts:  I submitted a piece yesterday attacking
flow charts as planning tools.  Many instructors tell students one
should always do a flowchart before starting a program.  I have never
met a competent programmer who found flowcharts useful as a planning
tool, and I contend that the reason for this is that flowcharts are
a very low-level "language", and that it takes much longer to do a
flowchart for a given piece of code than to write the same construct
in a higher level language like C, PL/I, or even BASIC.  The example
I gave was a fragment of C code that can be written as fast as one
can type.  The analogous flaw chart would take a minute or two to
draw, and that's crazy.
   Now someone posts an article saying that flowcharts are useful
for documentation, and implying I'm a C bigot.  (I use C because
it's the best thing available to me.  I nevertheless consider it to
be a poor language compared to what I'd like to have, which is a
sort of rationalized hybrid of C, PL/I, Modula-2, APL, and Esperanto.)
   Well, doggone it, I SPECIFICALLY SAID that flowcharts are an
excellent DOCUMENTATION tool.  It's the PLANNING they're worthless
for.  Sorry to shout, but sheesh....