Carmack about static analysis

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/24/2011 05:44 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 12/25/2011 12:27 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Saturday, 24 December 2011 at 23:12:27 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>>> I was talking about the abundance of (({}){()}) and not about
>>> identifiers length.
>>
>> It's the same fallacy.
>
> Not really. Functional style code tends to be conceptually simpler.
> Having code that is more readable can help. Getting rid of (({return
> {return}}){return()}) makes the code more readable, whereas excessively
> shortening identifiers does the opposite.
>
> See here for an example of what bearophile is talking about:
> http://pastebin.com/2rEdx0RD

I looked over that code. It creates an entire lazy evaluation 
environment. It's quite remarkable it's actually so concise, and I don't 
see a lot of ways to significantly improve it.

> However, I think the slow druntime GC is more of a show stopper for
> functional D than any syntactic issues there may be.

Got the GC book this morning, already read 2.5 chapters :o).


Andrei