3 ms·
The algorithm might take set(s) as input, sure. If that's inherently OOP then C structs are OOP. In any case, what actually happens to those sets once they're
by xamuel 11y ago
The algorithm might take set(s) as input, sure. If that's inherently OOP then C structs are OOP. In any case, what actually happens to those sets once they're declared, will probably be procedural. "Let I be the intersection of A and B." "Let Restriction be those elements of S which are positive." Etc. You'll rarely ever see factories, managers, private variables, explicit inheritance, or any other flagship OO mechanisms in pseudocode.
- AnonymousPlanet 11y ago> You'll rarely ever see factories, managers, private variables, explicit inheritance, or any other flagship OO mechanisms in pseudocode. Because they are implementation details that have no place in pseudocode. Their absence there does not say anything about their usefulness in general. You can't point at some observation about pseudocode and say "See, they don't use it so it must be rubbish." Exceptions, handling of error variables, monads, unsigned ints are also absent from typical pseudocode (unless the context is about those concepts). Does that make them useless concepts aswell?