|Flowchart generator? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-07-11)|
|Re: Flowchart generator? email@example.com (1994-07-29)|
|Re: Flowchart generator? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-08-01)|
|Re: Flowchart generator? email@example.com (1994-08-02)|
|Re: Flowchart generator? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-08-03)|
|Organization:||America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)|
|Date:||Tue, 2 Aug 1994 05:18:06 GMT|
In response to Steve McGowan I would say there is nothing wrong with
DSDs (or DFDs, Heirarchy charts, or even flowcharts.) It depends on what
they are designed to do and how your using them.
The (old) flowchart shows you the control flow within a program. But it's
not really convenient for large bodies of code (where it gets confusing
very fast.) Data Flow Diagrams show higher levels of abstraction, but
sooner or later you get down to code.
The problem holds true on every notational system I've ever seen. The
best way around it (that I know of) is to have an environment that lets
you pick the method that you view the code so that you can match the view
to the level of abstraction and what your trying to study (data flow,
control flow, timing, message passing, etc.)
The only thing I can say is that no one system works for all requirements
and you should use what works for you specific situation (I use DFDs,
hierarchy charts, and flowcharts [gasp!!!] for most of my work.)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.