|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> where something that looks like UML can be turned into source code and
>> back again with the appropriate tool.
>
> I'm constantly wondering why we don't have this yet.
>
> In fact, why aren't we all programming by drawing flowchart diagrams,
> and defining the behavior of each box on them?
Ever used a CASE tool?
Back at uni, we had a thing called Rational Rose that would let you draw
a bunch of diagrams, and if the diagrams went into sufficient detail
[you could draw a rough outline if you prefer], the program would spit
out 25 miles of C++ code.
The problem with this is that it tends to be *insanely* tedious to work
like this. For example, Native Instruments sell a product called Reaktor
[note absurd spelling] which allows you to basically write DSP
algorithms by placing boxes and connecting wires between them. Just for
giggles, try forming the expression "4x^3 - 3x" (the 3rd Chebyshev
polynomial of the 1st kind), assuming you have an incoming wire which
holds "x". That little expression there contains 5 multiplications and a
subtraction; the wires get messy, fast. And it takes a lot longer to
draw them all out than it does to write the formula...
I gather there was some sort of graphical Haskell evaluator that worked
a little like this. You'd draw an expression tree, press a button and
watch the graph reduction happen. I don't know what happened to it though...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |