Go rant

[retard]

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:04:32 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> The Haskell folks really need to find a better canonical example.
> 
> Add to that the Erlang folk, too. I'm reading the book on Erlang by
> Armstrong. Here's the Quicksort section and example on page 52:
> 
> "Here's how to write a sort algorithm[footnote] using two list
> comprehensions."
> 
> The footnote says (how the hell did this make it through the editorial
> pass???)
> 
> "This code is shown for its elegance rather than its efficiency. Using
> ++ in this way is not generally considered good programming practice."
> 
> So if the code is inefficient and in poor programming practice, how in
> this blessed world could it count as elegant?
> 
> I have gathered a fair amount of samples of involuntary humor from that
> book. I wouldn't want to go on about that because it could too easily be
> interpreted as poor taste competitiveness. Let me say I don't think the
> book is well written.

So now that you've finished writing your own book you have nothing else 
to do but to bash all books written by users of competitive languages. 
How low..

I'm 100% sure I can find a suboptimal programming example from some C/C++/
D book. Just like an operating system implementation book discusses Minix 
or some educational kernel, it's not really a surprise that programming 
books have naive examples. I'm not really interested to hear how latest 
win7 or linux 2.6.33 kernel patch solves some SATA2 / btrfs issue when 
reading about filesystems and buses. You should take those words about 
relative elegance with a grain of salt. Functional code is usually less 
verbose, less buggy, a bit less efficient due to many issues etc. These 
are things most professionals agree with. Apparently D users need to 
enhance their e-dick by ranting about everything that's not done in d 
just to get a tiny bit of publicity.