On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:14:30 +0200, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thing to note is that I'm not sure Python code will be understandable > by people who are not familiar with it, with OOP, etc. Pseudo-code can be > understood by people with a minimal amount of CS education. Shlomi, I think Pseudo-code needs to transmit an idea. Describe an idea in a way that is relatively accurate and compact. When you want to describe an algorithm in a way that it can be readily programmed. It does NOT NOT NOT need to be understood by people without CS education or little CS education, because writing pseudo-code already intends your article to this type of audience. >From my experience with real people, python-esque pseudo-code is well understood by people 'skilled in the art'. Even 2-page algorithms. And Shlomi, stop nitpicking. If there is one way to find the len() of an object, and that limits you in the pseudo-code that you are writing, well, I can't do anything for you, but for me (and I believe for most) it is EASIER to READ pseudo-code written in a single, consistant way. Yes I know it's the one-way vs. many-ways argument, but I think it holds especially for code that is read ONLY by humans, and almost never by a computer. -- Arik ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
