this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
36 points (92.9% liked)
Programming
17020 readers
240 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Makes sense when try to work through a complex logic flow that you just aren't sure about.
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.
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.
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).
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.