> you agree that pseudocode is not code and flow charts are also not pseudocode
What?
I just demonstrated that pseudocode is an ultimate form of a code, flowcharts included (they're just a graphical pseudocode). Maybe you do not understand what does the word "code" mean?
> What's 2+2?
Is it an average complexity of the problems you're solving?
> stack do you use?
Even your choice of words betrays you. You're a web coder, aren't you?
Just today I spent somewhere around 3 hours writing pseudocode on a piece of paper, and about 30 minutes typing it on a keyboard, testing and debugging. And it's about a typical proportion.
Pseudocode has a definition, you can't just make one up in an attempt to not look foolish.
No, automation with AI. DSS mostly. Stacks aren't just for web.
I guess if you are unwilling to share your stack or any information other than the fact that you write stuff on paper and don't know what pseudocode is, then we don't have much to discuss, and you haven't really made any convincing arguments to your "superior" coding methods. I've seen enough BS in my 20 years to recognize yours.
Let it go, you're wrong. It's obvious that you know you're wrong, otherwise you would argue your position rather than throwing personal insults and a hissy fit.
Pseudocode is not code. Flowcharts are not pseudocode.
You also didn't describe your stack. I just see some fresh meat who desperately wants people to take him seriously, but he has a hard time with it because he's kinda childish, very defensive, and can't argue his point.
Anyway, this discussion is counterproductive, so I'm going to stop reading after this one.
> Pseudocode is not code. Flowcharts are not pseudocode.
Pseudocode is code, no matter what uneducated pitiful code monkeys would say about it. Take any textbook on algorithms, and they would be most likely written in pseudocode.
Also, in your shameful incompetence you apparently ignored (more than once) my reference to DSLs, which are very closely related to the notion of pseudocode. But, since you know nothing about programming even this was cryptic for you.
> You also didn't describe your stack.
I already told you that I'm not going to even answer a question worded in such a disgusting hipstor argot. I told you everything that is relevant. This idiotic "stack" of yours does not matter. I worked for some blue chips, used a very wide variety of technologies, for domains ranging from hardware design and verification to CADs, database engines and compilers, and everyone I worked with did more or less the same - used either a whiteboard or paper most of the time, with very little time on actual coding / designing / soldering / prototyping / whatever.
What?
I just demonstrated that pseudocode is an ultimate form of a code, flowcharts included (they're just a graphical pseudocode). Maybe you do not understand what does the word "code" mean?
> What's 2+2?
Is it an average complexity of the problems you're solving?
> stack do you use?
Even your choice of words betrays you. You're a web coder, aren't you?
Just today I spent somewhere around 3 hours writing pseudocode on a piece of paper, and about 30 minutes typing it on a keyboard, testing and debugging. And it's about a typical proportion.