|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)|
|From:||email@example.com (Steve McGowan)|
|Organization:||Computing Science Dept., Glasgow University, Glasgow, Scotland|
|Date:||Wed, 3 Aug 1994 11:43:35 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (RonaldS60) writes:
>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.
Are you confusing Data *Flow* Diagrams with Design Structure Diagrams?
The former just show flow of information, but do not indicate control
flow. DSDs, however, are meant to replace the conventional flowcharting
technique which, as you rightly pointed out, is pretty useless for design
of large or complex software systems.
I wish I could dig out a reference for the DSD notation, but all I have
is an old lecture hand-out from 1983...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.