On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:52 +0100, dave wrote:
> diagrammatic languages == text based languages
>
> for instance, uml is a system for writing C++ (among other things) via
> various diagrams and outputs compilable C++, these diagrams can be
> generated from existing source code - they just represent a different
> view on the same thing
Yep but UML diagrams contain text, and AFAIK while you can generate
stubs and move things around you can't transform a whole C++ program
into UML and back again.
Programs written in textual languages can sometimes look like little
diagrams, particularly in the programmer's use of whitespace (whether
the whitespace is ignored by the lexer or not). We're laying out groups
of symbols in meaningful ways.
However there is something special about languages rich enough to allow
such things as introspection, self-description and so on. I guess to
find that richness you can't rely on simple diagrammatic symbols that
have meanings, and instead have to combine symbols to make words and
sentences, at which point you have text.
alex
Received on Sun Aug 13 2006 - 21:53:39 BST