Go rant

[retard]

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:04:05 +0100, Lutger wrote:

> retard wrote:
> 
>> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:54:19 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2009-12-19 21:04:32 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>>> "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?
>>> 
>>> Well, it is elegant in that it is very readable, and as such provides
>>> educational value. There are very many examples in programming text
>>> books that may not be efficient, but do show the solution to a problem
>>> elegantly.
>> 
>> I have several imperative language programming books and instead of
>> qsort they introduce the reader to the wonderful world of bubble sort!
> 
> And do you think that is good and elegant or stupid and ugly?

I'll let the official authority decide that. I have no opinion.