From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,587e0e0a16d65b10
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Invade wikipedia!
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <08cbf95f-1a72-4a93-8c21-55b1411b6608@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
References: <l6k0og.o0o.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <49a415c4$0$32675$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 79.91.74.142
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1235504538 25730 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2009 19:42:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:42:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=79.91.74.142;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3769
Date: 2009-02-24T11:42:18-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 24 f=E9v, 16:44, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de> wrote:
> From the point of view of Wikipedia, topics related to
> algorithms should really not use a programming language.
> Any specific language has idiosyncrasies that distract
> from the topic of algorithms. =A0Specific languages can only
> be justified if the implementation matters. (This is also
> approach in Knuth's TAOCP.)
>
> So, for rewriting algorithm examples there is a well
> specified and well established pseudo code notation,
> to be found in
>
> =A0Cormen/Leiserson/Rivest/Stein (2001):
> =A0Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition.
>
> The notation used there is becoming more popular.
>
> But then, when implementation matters, one could always
> show how Ada helps with getting details right and readable.
>
> --
> Avoid Ada hype. =A0-- RBKD at MIT, ~2005

This is not just a matter of implementation, it is also a matter of
precision.

If this kind of pseudo code was suffiscient to really and precisely
express algorithms, it would be a real language.

There is an exception about declarative languages, like part of the
mathematical one, beceause these ones express properties.

There is alaways some lacks and this pseudo-code has nothing better
than others. This is just a discret way to claim one langage is better
to another.... pseudo-code is a langage, beside any other one, and I
do not see a way it is better to any other one at expressing
algorithms.

Pseudo-code is commonly used in a loosy way (I do not mean it is a bad
thing) which could not work at all if one would try to map it in an
"implementation langage". Otherwise, it is a competitor which
errorneously claim to be the only one to be better than any one else.

And indeed, it is a good idea to not talk about algorithms using a
particular "implementation language", beceause algorithms are better
discussed using declarative meanings (implementation decision as well,
should be disccused using declarative meanings).