Wrong? No. I'm sure there's a large fraction of programmers out there who would agree with you. Incomplete? Yes. Rigor means doing everything necessary for your purpose. If a programmer's purpose is to communicate with other programmers, then sure, use pseudocode or whatever hand-waving human language you think might work. But if your purpose is to make something happen, in the world, outside of human minds, then use actual code and actual machines, including all the steps required to get the computer to do the thing.
Rigorous clarity, then, is a parsable phrase ... even for programmers. But clarity is not rigor ... at least not from a rigorous perspective. IDK. I expect my expectations for this post are off as well. 8^D I intended to respond to Steve. But I'll let this stand as that response, too. The callback to Glassholes was well-received. <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole> On 1/25/21 4:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Glen, I was trying to line up my understandings of clear and rigorous with > yours. I was thinking that, in your use, a clear line of code was one that > another programmer would understand, whereas a rigorous line of code was one > that got the computer to do what you wanted it to do. Was I wrong about > that? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
