Yes they are. A formal language is a code. Any formal language. What is the difference between code and pseudocode in your opinion?
And given that on a whiteboard interview you're writing a pseudocode, it is not any different from a typical day at work where you also write pseudocode on a whiteboard, blackboard, sheet of paper or whatever. And if this is not your typical day at work, you're doing it wrong.
Look up the prefix pseudo. "supposed or purporting to be but not really so; false; not genuine." Another definition, "not genuine; sham." Pseudocode is not computer code as to your assertion.
I think you are basing your argument that anything written down that can be turned into code is pseudocode. That is also not correct. Pseudocode has a very specific definition. Here is one:
"Pseudocode is an informal high-level description of the operating principle of a computer program or other algorithm. It uses the structural conventions of a normal programming language, but is intended for human reading rather than machine reading."
Flow charts do not use the structural conventions of normal programming languages, they use shapes and text.
If you are writing pseudocode (the actual definition, not your made up one) every day, you are wasting everyone on your team's time. If you are drawing diagrams every day on a whiteboard, you are still probably wasting everyone's time.
I can only hope I will never have to work in a team with someone like you. That would definitely be a massive waste of time.
A typical workflow based on a pseudocode is very simple and efficient: you solve your problem in a pseudocode - an informal language that does not yet exist but captures the essense of the problem. Then, while still on a whiteboard, you refine your pseudocode into something still "pseudo" (i.e., a made up language that does not exist), but formal this time. It may require a couple of iterations to reach perfection.
Then it is pretty much done, the only thing left is to implement this DSL, which is trivial in most of the cases.
This workflow is far more efficient than anything keyboard stomping kids can achieve in their fixed, always unsuitable, overbloated languages.
Ok, so I guess by your omission, you agree that pseudocode is not code and flow charts are also not pseudocode. I don't care about the rest, you can whiteboard all you want. We analyze the problem, then solve it in our heads, usually by the time we've finished talking about it. White boarding just seems way over the top, especially if it takes more than one person to solve a problem every day. Sounds like development by committee.
What's 2+2? Lets go to the whiteboard!
Out of curiosity, what industry are you in and stack do you use?
> 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.
