[someweirdperson]

There are people who consider software written, I mean painted, or as they say modelled, in the language of e.g. Simulink to be of higher value than other representations of code.

The reason for this is probably different use of the same terms. Some code might be tested within an implementation of a model of the real environment. That is a frequent use-case used to sell graphical languages. The term model is used for two different things: The model of the real world to allow testing and for the implementation of the solution in a graphical language. Of course developers in those environments are Klingons like we all are, no real effort for tests, and only the graphical solution remains. But it is perceived as if it had all the positive attributes of a solution tested in a simulated reality. And therefore something modelled is better, because it is modelled.

[taeric]

I think this is still doing it a disservice. You don't test a code with a model of the real environment. You execute the code, which was modeling something.

Consider, "F=ma" is a mathematical model relating force to mass and acceleration. You can test this by dropping several things each from the same height and seeing that the force linearly increases based on the mass of what you are dropping. Similarly, you could test the model by accelerating something to a halt at different speeds and seeing how much force is imparted into it.

Is that not a "model" because it is not necessarily graphical?

So, similarly, much CRUD software can be seen as modeling different agents in an overall system and what happens when they interact in certain ways.

Edit: I want to add that I think I see where you are coming from. Many treatments of graphical models like to hold them up as a special form of modeling.

[someweirdperson]

> Is that not a "model" because it is not necessarily graphical?

For some people model==graphical, usually mechanical/electrical engineers, not software-engineers. Engineers maintain the holy "model", and the translation to lowly code is a job for the lowest-bidding software person.

Maybe it wasn't clear, but I do not agree with that point of view, and tried to explain how I think people may have found their belief.

I assumed the parent^4 was labeling their code model in an attempt to elevate themself to the ranks of the code painters.