• nous@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Nah, if you have some complex logic you are not sure about then you need to see it run to be able to see how it reacts to changes. You cannot run pseudocode so it is far harder to validate it will do what you want it to do.

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I guess maybe its my sysadnin coding /DevOps domain that makes a couple of people spit balling on a white board faster to get started then rack and stacking, powercycling, or provisioning new instances.

      • nous@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        There is a big difference in planning server layouts and similar tasks and writing pseudocode. In comparason the planning is much cheaper and the cost of getting things wrong can be quite high. But with pseudocode, it is not that much cheaper to write than real code is, it gives you a lot less useful information and the cost of a mistake is quite cheap in code (that is while you are still developing things and for the types of problems pseudocode might even be able to catch).

        • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Agreed it seems like the largest factor is what is cost (both time, effort, and capital) is to run with real data vs tabletopping it. Mapping out unknowns might help if the costs of not catching unknowns is too high.