Ok. This IS homework ...
anthra.norell at vtxmail.ch
Mon Oct 16 20:46:10 CEST 2006
Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> Frederic Rentsch <anthra.norell at vtxmail.ch> 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.
More information about the Python-list