You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Sparked by this comment, I'd like to discuss whether explanations should use pseudocode or "real" code.
Reasons against pseudocode:
It isn't standardized. This leads to inconsistencies.
It's typically less precise than real code; it may be harder to understand, being more informal.
You can't execute and test it.
There is no "pseudocode" syntax highlighting in GFM; you'd have to pick the syntax highlighting of a "real" programming language and hope it works decently well with your pseudocode.
Reasons against "real" code:
It may obstruct the algorithm by introducing language boilerplate; it is less flexible than pseudocode.
Ultimatively, I'd say I'm fine with both pseudocode and "real" code. If "real" code doesn't have significantly more boilerplate than pseudocode, I'd lean towards real code. If the boilerplate makes the algorithm much harder to understand, I'd prefer textual or pseudocode descriptions.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Sparked by this comment, I'd like to discuss whether explanations should use pseudocode or "real" code.
Reasons against pseudocode:
Reasons against "real" code:
Ultimatively, I'd say I'm fine with both pseudocode and "real" code. If "real" code doesn't have significantly more boilerplate than pseudocode, I'd lean towards real code. If the boilerplate makes the algorithm much harder to understand, I'd prefer textual or pseudocode descriptions.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions