Structured programming

 

Programming paradigms
Main
Imperative Functional Logic programming Object-Oriented
Other
Action Agent-oriented Aspect-oriented Automata-based Component-based Concatenative Concurrent computing Data-driven Declarative End-user programming Event-driven Expression-oriented Feature-oriented Function-level Generic Language-oriented Metaprogramming Non-structured Nondeterministic Parallel computing Programming in the large and small Semantic Structured Value-level

Structured programming is a programming paradigm aimed on improving the clarity, quality, and development time of a computer program by making extensive use of subroutines, block structures and for and while loops – in contrast to using simple tests and jumps such as the goto statement which could lead to "spaghetti code" which is both difficult to follow and to maintain.

It emerged in the 1960s, particularly from work by Böhm and Jacopini, and a famous letter, Go To Statement Considered Harmful, from Edsger Dijkstra in 1968—and was bolstered theoretically by the structured program theorem, and practically by the emergence of languages such as ALGOL with suitably rich control structures.

Low-level structure programming

At a low level, structured programs are often composed of simple, hierarchical program flow structures. These are sequence, selection, and repetition:

• "Sequence" refers to an ordered execution of statements.

• In "selection" one of a number of statements is executed depending on the state of the program. This is usually expressed with keywords such as if..then..else..endif, switch, or case. In some languages keywords cannot be written verbatim, but must be stropped.

• In "repetition" a statement is executed until the program reaches a certain state, or operations have been applied to every element of a collection. This is usually expressed with keywords such as while, repeat, for or do..until. Often it is recommended that each loop should only have one entry point (and in the original structural programming, also only one exit point, and a few languages enforce this).

A language is described as block-structured when it has a syntax for enclosing structures between bracketed keywords, such as an if-statement bracketed by if..fi as in ALGOL 68, or a code section bracketed by BEGIN..END, as in PL/I - or the curly braces {...} of C and many later languages.

Structured programming languages

It is possible to do structured programming in any programming language, though it is preferable to use something like a procedural programming language. Some of the languages initially used for structured programming languages include: ALGOL, Pascal, PL/I and Ada – but most new procedural programming languages since that time have included features to encourage structured programming, and sometimes deliberately left out features in an effort to make unstructured programming more difficult.

History

Theoretical foundation

The structured program theorem provides the theoretical basis of structured programming. It states that three ways of combining programs—sequencing, selection, and iteration—are sufficient to express any computable function. This observation did not originate with the structured programming movement; these structures are sufficient to describe the instruction cycle of a central processing unit, as well as the operation of a Turing machine. Therefore a processor is always executing a "structured program" in this sense, even if the instructions it reads from memory are not part of a structured program. However, authors usually credit the result to a 1966 paper by Böhm and Jacopini, possibly because Dijkstra cited this paper himself. The structured program theorem does not address how to write and analyze a usefully structured program. These issues were addressed during the late 1960s and early 1970s, with major contributions by Dijkstra, Robert W. Floyd, Tony Hoare, and David Gries.

Debate

P. J. Plauger, an early adopter of structured programming, described his reaction to the structured program theorem:

Us converts waved this interesting bit of news under the noses of the unreconstructed assembly-language programmers who kept trotting forth twisty bits of logic and saying, 'I betcha can't structure this.' Neither the proof by Böhm and Jacopini nor our repeated successes at writing structured code brought them around one day sooner than they were ready to convince themselves.

Donald Knuth accepted the principle that programs must be written with provability in mind, but he disagreed (and still disagrees^{[citation needed]}) with abolishing the GOTO statement. In his 1974 paper, "Structured Programming with Goto Statements", he gave examples where he believed that a direct jump leads to clearer and more efficient code without sacrificing provability. Knuth proposed a looser structural constraint: It should be possible to draw a program's flow chart with all forward branches on the left, all backward branches on the right, and no branches crossing each other. Many of those knowledgeable in compilers and graph theory have advocated allowing only reducible flow graphs.

Structured programming theorists gained a major ally in the 1970s after IBM researcher Harlan Mills applied his interpretation of structured programming theory to the development of an indexing system for the New York Times research file. The project was a great engineering success, and managers at other companies cited it in support of adopting structured programming, although Dijkstra criticized the ways that Mills's interpretation differed from the published work.

As late as 1987 it was still possible to raise the question of structured programming in a computer science journal. Frank Rubin did so in that year with a letter, "'GOTO considered harmful' considered harmful." Numerous objections followed, including a response from Dijkstra that sharply criticized both Rubin and the concessions other writers made when responding to him.

Outcome

By the end of the 20th century nearly all computer scientists were convinced that it is useful to learn and apply the concepts of structured programming. High-level programming languages that originally lacked programming structures, such as FORTRAN, COBOL, and BASIC, now have them.

Common deviations

Exception handling

Although there is almost never a reason to have multiple points of entry to a subprogram, multiple exits are often used to reflect that a subprogram may have no more work to do, or may have encountered circumstances that prevent it from continuing.

A typical example of a simple procedure would be reading data from a file and processing it:

open file;
while (reading not finished) {
  read some data;
  if (error) {
    stop the subprogram and inform rest of the program about the error;
  }
  process read data;
}
finish the subprogram;

The "stop and inform" may be achieved by throwing an exception, second return from the procedure, labelled loop break, or even a goto. Many languages have instructions that allow unstructured exiting from loops and procedures. C allows multiple paths to a structure's exit (such as "continue", "break", and "return"), newer languages have also "labelled breaks" (similar to the former, but allowing breaking out of more than just the innermost loop) and exceptions.

The procedure above breaks the rules of Dijkstra's structured programming because the while loop can terminate in a way that is not specified in the while condition (the "reading not finished"), and because it has two exit points (the end of the procedure and the "stop" on error). Re-coding this to use a structured while loop and a single point of exit is trivial:

open file;
while (no error) and (reading not finished) {
  read some data;
  if (no error) {
    process read data;
  }
}
if (error) {
  inform rest of the program about the error;
  }
else {
  finish the subprogram;
}

This removes the unstructured termination of the while loop and gives the procedure a single exit point without any change to the overall function.

State machines

Some programs, particularly parsers and communications protocols, have a number of states that follow each other in a way that is not easily reduced to the basic structures. It is possible to structure these systems by making each state-change a separate subprogram and using a variable to indicate the active state (see trampoline). However, some programmers (including Knuth^{[citation needed]}) prefer to implement the state-changes with a jump to the new state.

See also

• Control flow (more detail of high-level control structures)
• Minimal evaluation
• Object-oriented programming
• Nassi–Shneiderman diagram
• Programming paradigms
• Structured exception handling
• Structure chart
• Switch statement, a case of multiple GOTOs

References

1. Edsger Dijkstra, Notes on Structured Programming, pg. 6
2. Böhm, C. and Jacopini, G.: Flow diagrams, Turing machines and languages with only two formation rules, CACM 9(5), 1966.
3. Michael A. Jackson, Principles of Program Design, Academic Press, London, 1975.
4. O.-J. Dahl, E. W. Dijkstra, C. A. R. Hoare Structured Programming, Academic Press, London, 1972 ISBN 0-12-200550-3
   • this volume includes an expanded version of the Notes on Structured Programming, above, including an extended example of using the structured approach to develop a backtracking algorithm to solve the 8 Queens problem.
   • a pdf version is in the ACM Classic Books Series
   • Note that the third chapter of this book, by Dahl, describes an approach which is easily recognized as Object Oriented Programming. It can be seen as another way to "usefully structure" a program to aid in showing that it is correct.

External links

• BPStruct - A tool to structure concurrent systems (programs, process models)
• Notes on Structured Programming and Variation Analysis (Programming Wisdom Center)
• Algobuild: Free editor for structured flow charts and pseudo code (EN - IT)
• J. Darlinton, M. Ghanem, H. W. To (1993), "Structured Parallel Programming", In Programming Models for Massively Parallel Computers. IEEE Computer Society Press. 1993, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.37.4610