[nrr]

"The cultists claim that it IS a machine language." Cultists? I'm still left scratching my head as to how this is relevant to my comment.

I wrote about the Fregat upper stage, DRAKON's expressiveness as it relates to recursion with an example of an environment where it might be undesirable, and how the implementation of quicksort shown on Wikipedia is "perfectly fine."

Where are the cultists there?

[cyberax]

In general, that's an apt description for DRAKON proponents. I interacted with them more than once.

And at this point, it's not even clear if DRAKON charts make sense even for their intended purpose: visual illustrations of simple algorithms. They are better than classic flow charts, but that's mostly because flow charts themselves are hopelessly bad.

Sequence diagrams are better to show interactions between agents, and good old state diagrams are far better structured to visualize state transitions.

[nrr]

I'll try being more direct.

I have a tightly-defined universe of discourse here, and you are operating almost completely outside it. Why is your engagement with my comment relevant beyond the connection to DRAKON?

So far, I've seen you write about cultists and Buran and, now, how sequence diagrams and state diagrams are superior. That final bit could admittedly make for interesting conversation, but I've heretofore not seen significant substantiation from you or, hell, any interrogation from you why I even use DRAKON.

Dare I say it, but I feel like I've been the target of your trauma response here, and I don't exactly appreciate it.