On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 at 18:06, Mark John Buenconsejo wrote:
> yeah i agree entirely. that's why it's good to stick to just algo
> discussion. pang academic stuffs lang where u use pseudo-code to
> implement an algo.
Well, maybe and maybe not. As Dido was saying, different languages have
different fortes/niches/applications. Pseudocode is pseudocode. "Code na
hindi". But you still have a code you're pretending to be. You just
simplify things (ie: allow some ambiguities) so you don't spend forever
debugging your reply before sending it. ;>
>i don't know if there's a standard for a pseudo-code? ;-)
There is no standard for pseudocode because it's pseudo, aka, not real.
Pseudocode comes in various "languages", too. We have a professor who uses
pseudo-Pascal, another who uses pseudo-C++, and another who uses pseudo-C.
Then of course there are people who like writing wierd mixes of various
languages.
Pseudocode is there to enable people to write "code" faster for teaching
and discussion purposes. Standardizing it would defeat its purpose.
> and using VB for plain old code programming is a burden. ;-) as they
> always say, download an activex, get a plug-in. ;-)
It's Micro$ofty, what can you expect? (hehehehe)
> in my opinion C is enough to show any algo. please correct me, if `m
> wrong.
I guess that really depends. If you're discussing a particular algorithm
that's language sensitive and is not to be done in C, why use C? But I
think C is pretty usable in a lot of applications. Heck, the Linux
kernel's full of it. ;>
--> Jijo
---
Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows NT ...
... also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
