This seems worth remembering: >Structured programming gave us the conventional control structures present in most PLs: for-loops, while-loops, if-then-else sta

This seems worth remembering: >Structured programming gave us the conventional control structures present in most PLs: for-loops, while-loops, if-then-else statements, switch-case statements, etc. None of them are appropriate in 2D (but are very appropriate in a 1D program, usually written in text). Historically, structured programming was developed to enable the elimination of the GOTO statement. However I don't understand how conventional control structures are necessarily inappropriate for 2D. It seems to me that the 1D nature of text is used to map to execution point; even if that point jumps around a lot, it starts at the beginning, moves down by one line unless told otherwise, and ends at the bottom. In my tool, execution order is determined by dependencies, which is fine because there's no mutation (not by code anyway) so order doesn't really matter. So some constructs---`for`, `while` and `until` for instance---do become obsolete/meaningless. If and switch, however, remain very relevant. For that matter, switch draws its name from real-life switches in real-life machines, which run on ultra-concurrent physics. But we still find a use for them. Have I mis-stated or misunderstood you? As for the 2D similarity of 1D languages, that certainly sounds interesting. By "presenting them in 2D," do you mean something like Blockly? Blockly kind of leaves me cold because it seems like normal code, plus extreme syntax help. I mean, cool and stuff, but we can dream bigger, you know? Anyway, do you mean that imperative, functional, and concatenative all have the same basic made-from-text look when put into something like Blockly, or is there a deeper point I'm missing? Thanks a ton, btw. I'm always interested to hear what people think on this subject.