On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:58:59 -0700, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I still think these constructs showed up in language very fast. What if > I said maybe that was due to the mathematical training of the minds of > the time? That this enabled them to see *order* in programming as > quickly as they did? Would that appease you?
I think the issue here may be that someone (I've no idea who, and I'm not going to go back and find out) said "support structured programming" when he meant "enforce structured programming". There is a world of difference; *all* higher level programming languages "support" structured programming. But in most of the early languages, it required serious discipline on the programmer's part to engage in structured programming.
Most intelligent programmers understood the need for some structure, and disciplined themselves into it, well before languages forced it upon them. Hell, I invented blocks for myself in the early 60's, in FORTRAN II on an IBM 1620. That wasn't a very big step, even for a language that didn't directly support subroutines. Just do one thing right before you go on to the next thing, was my idea.
- --Louis A. Talman Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Metropolitan State University of Denver