[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