|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:13 AM EST |
| Yeah, but it only runs on a pseudo processor. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 12:40 PM EST |
It's not what is generally considered to be "source code",
and certainly not what programmers or those in the field
consider to be source code.
Source code is generally understood to be
compiled/assembled/translated/interpretted to
runnable/executable code via another program or programs.
More of a semantic argument.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: reiisi on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:03 PM EST |
While I will acknowledge the appropriateness of pseudocode in patents, in
addition to source code, pseudocode is not source code. It is not compilable in
general, despite advertising claims made concerning fourth and fifth generation
languages that seem to do so -- for a very restricted context.
Can someone well-versed in the art take pseudo-code and brain-compile it to the
invention?
Consider: the same programmer that wrote the blamed pseudocode can wake up one
day on the other side of the bed and convert the pseudocode to a rather
different invention, and there isn't even a real compiler to correct him.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
