Please accept my apologies. I can see I have been unclear. It's been my experience that when attempting to communicate, people use the vocabulary they expect w

Please accept my apologies. I can see I have been unclear. It's been my experience that when attempting to communicate, people use the vocabulary they expect will do the job efficiently for the task at hand. As you say, for many things this is absolutely pseudocode! But I've also been in situations where mathematics, or the many Greek letter transformations of Haskell, or something else was the vocabulary of choice. As the projects I've worked on have grown more complex and occasionally abstract, pseudocode has increasingly not been the go-to answer. Again, you're completely right. It's a major issue that medical professionals often lack a real understanding of how a given pharmaceutical works. It's one that is in dire need of addressing! I also think medical professionals have this shared assumption that they can talk about anatomy and physical processes with one another to communicate effectively and precisely, rather than "the bone next to the other bone next to the chompy thing". Especially when on a chart and the other professional isn't nearby to ask. That's shared vocabulary at work. I've certainly struggled to have architectural discussions with people with whom I shared little vocabulary. I'm sure the failing was entirely mine. You're completely right. There's a lot here and pseudocode is incredibly powerful! I find it worth considering that there might be value to be gained in shared vocabulary beyond that one tool. Your mileage may of course vary. Thank you kindly for the opportunity to better explain my points.