It has been observed, and perhaps with good reason, that structured programming is a big pain in the neck. And yet, those who profess to have tried it also claim they like it. Furthermore, they insist they will never do without it again. Is it possible that the nay-sayers and the professed believers are talking about the same thing? Probably not. There is at least a subtle distinction which lies somewhere near the heart of the continuing structured programming controversy.
Based on a review of textbooks and literature and discussion with information systems educators, the use of structured concepts began to be taught in programming classes in the early 1970s. The classic articles on structured programming and analysis/design, respectively, are the following: “Flow Diagrams, Turing Machines, and Languages with Only Two Formation Rules,” by Bohm, C. and Jacopini, G. Communications of the ACM , Volume 9, Number 5, pp. 366-371, May 1966. “Structured Design,” by Stevens, W. P.; Myers, G. J.; and Constantine, L. L. IBM Systems Journal , Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 115-139, 1974.
Surface structure analysis is an important area of research, and in recent years notable advances have been made in this field, both in improved techniques for studying surfaces and in methods of analyzing them. This review aims to summarize the techniques available, particularly those relating to electron microscopy, and also to outline one of the newest areas of development, the application of direct methods to surface structure analysis.