Talk:Flow-driven programming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it just me, or is this article just a series of nonsense statements phrased so as to appear authoritative? I also note that Comparison of programming languages claims C is a (and the only) flow-driven language. JöG 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. The language is formal but imprecise and poor. I'd never heard the term before, and most of the google hits seem to be driven from this page. I believe they mean it to be the antonym of event-driven programming. If so, saying that C is the one and only flow-driven language makes little sense. It's less a property of the language than a choice of the application writer. There are a few concurrent languages with preferred models for concurrency, but C is just another plain imperative language in this sense.

What would you properly call these ways of handling concurrency? Personally, I've heard and used:

• Threaded vs. event-driven. But the former is not really accurate: you can handle concurrency without event-driven programming with multiple processes instead of multiple threads. And if you're only interested in one thing, you write in the threaded style...without ever using a thread library. That's confusing.
• Synchronous vs. asynchronous, after a description of the IO calls. The actual select(2) or whatever is always synchronous, though.
• Blocking vs. non-blocking. Likewise.

I don't know what's most widely accepted. -Slamb 06:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)