On 17/01/2013 12:30, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 01/15/2013 08:29 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
It's paradoxical that a 1D (i.e. linear) representation is more useful
for capturing the complexity of programming as opposed to, say, a 2D
graphical representation
Typical code is 2d because of
On Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:17:06 UTC, Stewart Gordon
wrote:
And in most languages, a program/module is essentially just a
sequence of tokens, and as such is one-dimensional. We might
look at it in a two-dimensional form, but this two-dimensional
layout means nothing as far as the
On Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:17:06 UTC, Stewart Gordon
wrote:
OTOH, because we tend to view code in a two-dimensional form,
and even rely on line breaks and block indentation to make code
readable, I can understand people thinking of code as 2D.
And there are languages in which the code
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:43:33PM +0100, Rob T wrote:
On Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:17:06 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
OTOH, because we tend to view code in a two-dimensional form, and
even rely on line breaks and block indentation to make code
readable, I can understand people thinking of
On Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 23:35:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
It's easy to represent in 2D or 3D a *simulation* of program
execution (I.e., a particular instance of execution), but how
do you represent concurrent program *logic*?
For example, consider this: you have a program in which up
