Talk:Structured programming

message: I think the opening paragraph is very weak.  It starts off saying that "Structured Programming can be seen as..." and then goes to categorize the subject but avoids completely defining it.  As you all know, the opening paragraph should provide a clear explanation to the layperson of what the overall idea of the subject is.  Calling out to any experts on the subject!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaManCanDance (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Explanation 

message: Great, structured programming removes GOTO.... Ummm... that's not the point of structured programming, I hope ;-)
The idea is to make your code more readable and maintainable, and to help to divide and conquer your problem. Right? Sooo... that might need some rewording. Kim Bruning 18:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing something 

message: (n/t) -- Kim Bruning 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is [[Craig Davies]]? 

message: I want --for myself-- to know the paper where Knuth proposed that "looser structural constraint.." If anyone knows? It could be written for references as well.Downtownee 13:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knuth 

message: "Although there is almost never a reason to have multiple points of entry to a subprogram" This does not sound right to me. Multiple entry points in a subprogram(or function or method, whatever you wish to call it) Is the very idea behind polymorphism, and polymorphism is a centeral tenant of OO programming. So it would seem to me is there are a great many reasons to have multiple entry points in a subprogram. Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:28 AM (UTC)
: I think the context has changed. An entry point into a subprogram is not the equivalent to a method call on an object.YAC (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zebulon 

message: Recently while taking a C language course I saw the "break" and "continue" statements are these not GOTO by another name??? And really isn't the "else" a GOTO by another name??? Most "structured" computer languages have ways of exiting a loop in an abnormal fashion are not all of these (in whatever programming language) just another form of GOTO without the "sin" of using a GOTO??? Isn't any form of IF or SWITCH/CASE (and others) really a transfer of control = GOTO??? So all talk of 1 language being better because it doesn't have a GOTO is just so much propganda.
Hardheadt 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Years ago COBOL II, I think added 'Perform Thru'. COBOL Programs generatlly had pargarph names like 1000-DO-THIS. So you could perfrom 1000-DO-THIS thru 1000-DO-THIS-EXIT, for example. If you wanted to use 1000-DO-THIS-EXIT as a clean-up point you could write a lot of convulted code with deeply nested ifs (essentially useless), or you could use a GOTO. Some places actually wouldn't allow that simple because of the GOTO. Throwing an exception is equivalent to a GOTO - I've seen amazingly complex code written to avoid exiting a function in the begninning when the arguments were invalid - yet throwing an exception in the same conditions is de riquer. But, the good do-bees that follow all the rules would probably write crap if they didn't. The trick is to know how to use them as guidelines for writing good code rather than rules that require stilted code. YAC (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOTO by another name 

message: Since this is defined merely in terms of unstructured programming being the converse of structured programming, it should really be part of the structured programming article. There isn't really a discipline of 'unstructured programming' as such, but as the article says, only people who should know better ;) —porges(talk) 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have turned Unstructured programming into a redirect.  I couldn't actually find anything there worth merging here; feel free to examine the old version in the history for yourself.  --Csphdmoney 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've always liked "Stream of Consciousness", or "And Now Do This" programming. YAC (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: One derogatory name is "spaghetti code", that is, code where it is very difficult to follow the flow. Perhaps the epitomy of this is what a code obfuscator tries to do. Hard-to-understand code is pretty much the opposite of usefully structured code. There is an article on Obfuscation (software). --AJim (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Is discussion of structured programming still warranted? I wore out my Structured Prorgamming Books in the 80's and used the techniques into the 90's. But if OOP is available, discussing structured programming, other than as some kind of introduction to OOP - which I don't agree is necessary, seems like a waste of time. So why am I writing this? Good question. Painted myself in a corner it seems.YAC (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And if functional programming takes over as the next programming fad, people will be asking the same thing about Oop. One could make it short and just agree with Ford in saying, "History is bunk." Or not. --217.132.200.209 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete? 

message: While the origin of block-structured programming is easy to ref, e.g. , I can't find any book that uses the terminology "comb-structured programming". Pcap ping 13:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: A one-sentence section? Really? - dcljr (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: An quick explanation in the text would be nice.  I found this "Characterizations of Reducible Flow Graphs" (1974 JACM)[], but it isn't exactly simple for those not schooled in graph theory. Jimw338 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Reducible Flow Graph? 

message: Graphical representations of the three basic patterns. The box diagrams (blue) were invented right for the new theory, and you can see here their equivalents in the mostly used control flow charts. This is the caption to the first image in the article, and it needs to be worded better, if not entirely re-written. Please fix it to be less Engrish.
-97.119.151.16 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: When discussing Structured Programming people often get logical and physical structuring confused. Structured Programming describes logical structuring of systems and programs. The "Low-level structured programming" section of this article describes physical structuring and is therefore entirely irrelevant to Structured Programming. This article should emphasize logical structuring and should emphasize that Structured Programming is not about physical structuring. Sam Tomato (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical and physical structuring 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Structured programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023061601/http://cs.sjsu.edu/~mak/CS185C/KnuthStructuredProgrammingGoTo.pdf to http://cs.sjsu.edu/~mak/CS185C/KnuthStructuredProgrammingGoTo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This article pretends that "single-exit" means single return statement, while apparently this is not at all what it means. See flowcharts in "Notes on Structured Programming" by Dijkstra, and here is a quote:
:These flowcharts share the property that they have a single entry at the top and a single exit at the bottom: as indicated by the dotte block they can again be interpreted (by disregarding what is inside the dotted lines) as a single action in a sequential computation.
So, "single-entry, single-exit" means that from the outside, the "block" should look like a single piece, with one entry and one exit. It does not matter whether inside the block there are multiple return statements -- it does not change the external look/interface of the block.
In the context of functions, "single-exit" just means that the function returns to where it was called from -- it cannot decide to return elsewhere (no continuation-passing style?).
See this answer on SoftwareEngineering.SE. --Alexey Muranov (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over "single-exit" principle 

message: area of a triangle 105.160.110.227 (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  mathematics 

message: Discussion 2001:4455:232:A400:A04A:3FD1:7AEA:B7F1 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure paradigm 

message: Explain programing structure 2402:3A80:1348:297:98AF:E807:C1B3:FA8D (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programing c