[ac2u]

I think it's actually a good move here, using a real language would invite too many comments getting caught in the weeds along the lines of: "actually the language does X, Y and Z to implement coroutines which this article skips over"

[latchkey]

Agreed. My comment was more relating to the fact that comments about 'what' something is, aren't as helpful as answering the 'why', which you just did. =)

[Dobiasd]

Thanks for the feedback! I just extended the comment to touch on the "why" part. :) https://github.com/Dobiasd/articles/commit/53f360259ad8e64ca...

[latchkey]

Don't leave me hanging, too specific about what?

[Dobiasd]

https://github.com/Dobiasd/articles/commit/b5342dd5072480800...

Better? :)

[latchkey]

That is fantastic. Much appreciated on the quick response. You're hired. =)

[happytoexplain]

I'm not sure if you're actually suggesting that the author expound further on the concept of pseudocode, or if this is just humor.

[latchkey]

Mostly humor, but also a suggestion. Why? Because if it was real code I'd want the 'why' to be as specific as possible. It doesn't have to be a novel, but it also shouldn't be left open for interpretation.

Too many times have I gotten some ancient piece of code and cursed the author (sometimes this is even myself) for either not documenting it well or it had a bug or whatnot. "OMG, what were they thinking when they wrote this code?!" I never want to be in the position where someone is cursing me.

[Dobiasd]

Thanks! Yeah, that was one of the intentions. :)