Nassi - Shneiderman; Does anyone still actually use this?

[NetDave]

AspDotNetDev wrote:

If I am having trouble visualizing the code I'm going to write, I'll write it out in comments first, and then expand those comments into code

Ditto. Not only does it help me think the problem through, but then the code is pre-commented.

QRZ? de WAØTTN

[Pete OHanlon]

My old boss was good friends with Michael Jackson of JSP fame. When I met him, he admitted that JSP should never have seen the light of day. Nice man though.

Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads

"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility

[Dr Walt Fair PE]

I remember having to draw flow charts way back in another century. Once I got to actually programming for real, though, I never used them, but preferred pseudo-code to show the structure and relationships. I recall one job where flow charting was required, so I used to draw the flow charts after I had the code working. My supervisor thought I was a genius, because my flow charts never had erasure marks on them (that was before interactive text editors). While everyone else had erased portions and corrected theirs, I got the flow chart right the first time. :laugh: These days I usually write pseudo-code in my comments, then add the real code. Over the years my pseudo-code has changed from something like Algol to something like Pascal to something like C#, but I don't stick to a fixed syntax and since it's pseudo-code, it's not a real language anyway.

CQ de W5ALT

Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software

[Mike Hankey]

Yeah same here depends on what it is I'm doing. Still use the old fashioned flow charting on rare occasion but like you more of the C# type pseudo-code. For electrical circuits, well I won't even go there as I might get a head shake or two from people like David Auld. :) (I know just enough to be dangerous)

Sects Therapy

[Mike Hankey]

Ah college...slide rules and PL/1 writen on puch cards and fed into an IBM360 (the coffin)

Sects Therapy

[Jorgen Andersson]

Admittedly quite useless, never used it outside school. The principle is sound though as long as you're using COBOL.

Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions

[Septimus Hedgehog]

I remember the punch cards and how, heaven help you, if you put Fortran's statement continuation indicator in the wrong column. IBM360 - I remember that machine with affection. Later, I applied Fortran onto massive 80MB hard drives which must have been 14" or more in diameter and there was a stack of 10 or so platters to make up the 80MB. Those were heady days of "real" computing where memory was limited and even magnetic tapes contributed to the runtime story. There was a lovely light inside the ICL 1904 called the SAD Highway. I still think of it with affection. We were never allowed to submit a card deck unless we drew the logic using flowcharting stencils and the drawings had to be approved by the lecturer beforehand and indeed, they contributed to the course assessment.

[Gary R Wheeler]

While I remember those diagrams from magazine articles, I've never used them. Hmm... Come to think of it, I don't use any of these techniques any longer. I just code. Admittedly, it's a rather old-fashioned approach. I create empty solutions/projects/assemblies/classes/members for the stuff I have in mind, and fill the structure in as I go. I refactor this a lot as it fills in.

Software Zen: delete this;

[LloydA111]

Never heard/seen of it. Looks vastly over complicated.

---

See if you can crack this: b749f6c269a746243debc6488046e33f
So far, no one seems to have cracked this!

The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."

[Henry Minute]

PHS241 wrote:

We were never allowed to submit a card deck unless we drew the logic using flowcharting stencils and the drawings had to be approved by the lecturer beforehand and indeed, they contributed to the course assessment.

Of course, occasionally (never in my case, you understand :laugh:) what was actually on the cards didn't actually match the flowchart.

Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.

[Septimus Hedgehog]

The buffoon I had as a lecturer did check the cards against the flowcharts. He was far too anal. We'd sometimes stand outside the computer operators room where the machines were and wait for them to pass the steel tray containing the cards and the compilation report. We'd hastily correct the obvious errors and resubmit the job. Our department was charged for the time the job was passed through the window to the time it was passed back out. The operators used to "help" us by not booking the try in again for a rerun if it didn't cause them too much hassle. Since then I've relied on the modern way of doing application design. It's called the Mozart Methodology; namely, you compose at the keyboard. :-D

[Ben Breeg]

It is. It's a bummer to put right if you realise you've made a mistake as well. Why oh why our lecturer had to tell us about it I don't know. Even the inventors peers didn't think much to it either!! http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/members/bshneiderman/nsd/rejection_letter.pdf

Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?

[JimmyRopes]

Just another example of why people who can do and people who can't teach. :doh: It probably looked good as an academic construct, and probably even got good lab results in biased academic assignments, but in the real world there was no use for it as a formal construct. I occasionally use something like pseudo-code to demonstrate to colleagues the way an algorithm can be structured, but never for constructing an algorithm myself. Why bother when you can type the real code and see if it works, and if you are using TDD (Test Driven Design), sometimes called BDD (Behavior Driven Design), you know the results as you write the code. I start with very loose template of how the algorithm should be structured (classes, methods, etc.) and refactor until it passes all the tests resulting in the desired behavior.

The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

[RaviBee]

I don't, but I do flowchart complex processes before coding them.  Most of the time I'm able to do this in my head, but I sometimes find it helps to have a visual diagram I can tweak. /ravi

My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

[Rage]

I used to on a daily basis: at some point we were writing C-code in X32 from hitex, a nassi-schneiderman editor[^].

~RaGE();

I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb

[GenJerDan]

Oh, hell no. Bought a pascal compiler once and the documentation was all in BNF. It was like :wtf: But at least it kinda sorta looked like code...

So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.

[BobJanova]

I'd never do this. If a problem is simple enough to pseudo-code immediately, it's also simple enough to code immediately in a high level language – garbage collected languages almost are pseudo-code, heh. For a complex problem I will often draw class and data-flow diagrams to work out what I should do before actually starting – they often get quite a few modifications and it's quicker to change paper than code. If it's just for me I tend to put class structure and data flow on the same diagram, using colours to distinguish things, but the first version of that can get pretty messy.