It's always seemed to me, too, that for many folks the tacit definition of the term "pseudo-code" is "code that only a human being is qualified to judge as in conformance with relevant strictures." If it can be compiled or determined as "meaningful" by a machine, well that would make it "code," rather than "pseudo-code."
Which is not to say that the possibility of a "standard" for pseudo-code is foreclosed. Educational Testing Service has "standards" for scoring student essays written in English, but there's no machine capable of checking an essay for conformance. For software developers (it seems to me) the utility of pseudo code is that it allows for exploratory discourse that, while helpful and detailed, is still in that liminal phase prior to a wholly rational grammar. Just a thought. --Lane DeNicola On Jan 21, 2008 5:13 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:10:19 -0800 > From: "Landon Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [Geowanking] Standard for Pseudocode > To: <[email protected]> > > Thanks Andrew. I'll read the article that you linked to on using Ruby as > Java pseudocode. > > Landon -- Lane DeNicola, Ph.D. Faculty Fellow in the Humanities Geography Dept. and Program in Science, Technology & Society Syracuse University http://web.syr.edu/~ladenico _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
