It’s a big reason why I really dont like pseudocode as instruction to people learning the basics of what programming is. It made more sense 20 years ago when programming languages were on a whole a lot more esoteric and less plain text, but now with simple languages like Python there’s simply little reason to not just write Python code or whatever.

I took an intro to programming class in College and the single thing I got dinged on the most is “incorrect pseudocode”, which was either too formal and close to real code or too casual and close to plain English.

It’s not a great system. We really need to get rid of it as a practice

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 22 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Especially since python is right there.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 7 months ago (7 children)

I mean once you get beyond bash-like scripts python is esoteric as fuck, adding oop to what is essentially a shell is a terrible idea

That said, there's plenty of languages with good syntax that is still good when you get into more complex stuff (modern C#, scala, kotlin and more)

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I disagree. Python is not "esoteric" when making objects. The syntax is certainly easier than in Java.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The syntax is certainly easier than Java

And VisualBasic's syntax is easier than COBOL, but this isn't a competition to make the least offensive heap of putrid garbage, so why does it matter?

Python works just fine for basic scripts, frankly it's amazing for it, but oop and functional programming is so incredibly obviously badly shoehorned in that huge swathes needs scrapping and version 4 releasing

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Then help me understand please. What do you mean by "esoteric" in regards to oop in Python compared to a language better suited for it?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)