Lou Talman posted Mar 2, 2014 12:02 (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9399601): > > 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". > (Returning to Internet after absence of about a week: At this thread, I've read only upto this post, so some of the points I'm making below may well have been made by others, perhaps in other words).
I believe that development of model 'A' below could lead to a realistic and workable Action Plan to improve the 'state of s/w programming', while model 'B' is entirely unrealistic:
A: "To support structured programming WOULD STRONGLY CONTRIBUTE TO improve 'the state of s/w programming'"
B: "To enforce structured programming WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO improve 'the state of s/w programming'".
I would go so far as to claim that 'B' would (most likely), in the long run, lead to significant deterioration in 'the state of s/w programming'.
I believe that 'B' is an outcome of thinking derived from an 'approach to education' much like Robert Hansen's philosophy "Children must be PUSHED (or GOADED) to learn math!" (and doubtless everything else).
GSC Lou Talman's post appears in full below my signature for ready reference:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:58:59 -0700, Robert Hansen > <email@example.com> 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 > > <http://rowdy.msudenver.edu/~talmanl>