C++ vs Lisp
Neal Alexander
WQEQWEUQY at HOTMAIL.COM
Sat May 17 14:27:07 PDT 2008
Robert Fraser wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> An oldie, but some very thought provoking observations on what makes a
>> language productive:
>>
>> http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~irenelg/courses/330/CTM/Resources/C++-vs-Lisp.txt
>
>
> Concise does not always mean readable, and reducing lines of code should
> *never* be a design goal. For example, if I removed many temporary
> variables and used long expressions (as is the style in many functional
> languages), I could probably chop off 1/5-1/4 of the LOC of my program,
> but debugging/fixing it would get much harder. Additionally, redundancy
> (as stated in the ";" topic) is not necessarily a bad thing as it helps
> reinforce meaning to readers.
Dunno heh, some functional languages tend to have a much easier time
with spreading dense logic into smaller segments. Its not about just
packing in as much logic as you can per line. You show the high level
interaction between functions and abstract away the gory details of the
implementation.
f x =
write x =<< mutate =<< read x
where
mutatate list = do
...
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list