2 ms·

But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? (Yes most

by rini17 4y ago

But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? (Yes most programming languages use trees, it has some advantages. But most people program in excel anyway.)

lisper 4y ago
> What will you do when you need to describe a graph What will you do when you need to describe a graph with (say) more than a thousand nodes? I hope you won't try to draw a picture of it.
- rini17 4y ago
  Why not? Feeding it to graphviz is one of the viable avenues of attack.
  - lisper 4y ago
    And what exactly is the "it" that you "feed to graphviz"? Creating a graphical rendering of data is not what I was referring to when I spoke of drawing a picture. What I meant was actually drawing, i.e. using MacDraw or PowerPoint or a pencil and paper and drawing. Because that is what people mostly do when they use UML.
    - rini17 4y ago
      Electrical circuits were mentioned and yes they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK, even with over 1000 nodes. What's the argument here?
      - lisper 4y ago
        > they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK I work at Intel, so I can tell you with some authority that you are mistaken.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? Graphs are reducible to lists of nodes and edges which are very linearizable. That may not be the most useful form for comprehension, but linear forms are quite good for writing and storing. Visual notation is useful for presentation here, but IME quality is much lower in drawn diagrams than rendered-from-linearly-authored-text diagrams, which explains why most of my diagramming is done in a text editor (e.g., in Markdown+Mermaid) with visual preview.

2 ms·

But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? (Yes most

by rini17 4y ago

lisper 4y ago
> What will you do when you need to describe a graph What will you do when you need to describe a graph with (say) more than a thousand nodes? I hope you won't try to draw a picture of it.
- rini17 4y ago
  Why not? Feeding it to graphviz is one of the viable avenues of attack.
  - lisper 4y ago
    And what exactly is the "it" that you "feed to graphviz"? Creating a graphical rendering of data is not what I was referring to when I spoke of drawing a picture. What I meant was actually drawing, i.e. using MacDraw or PowerPoint or a pencil and paper and drawing. Because that is what people mostly do when they use UML.
    - rini17 4y ago
      Electrical circuits were mentioned and yes they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK, even with over 1000 nodes. What's the argument here?
      - lisper 4y ago
        > they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK I work at Intel, so I can tell you with some authority that you are mistaken.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? Graphs are reducible to lists of nodes and edges which are very linearizable. That may not be the most useful form for comprehension, but linear forms are quite good for writing and storing. Visual notation is useful for presentation here, but IME quality is much lower in drawn diagrams than rendered-from-linearly-authored-text diagrams, which explains why most of my diagramming is done in a text editor (e.g., in Markdown+Mermaid) with visual preview.