Carmack about static analysis

[Timon Gehr]

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

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

> I can't read Carmack's mind, but
> I'm sure he's talking about shortening code the same way
> I would mean it if I said it - simpler concepts, fewer cases,
> less repetition.
>
> It's about how much you have to think about, now how much you
> have to read/write.

I am quite sure he is talking about character count. I still think you 
are right, because for reasonable code with average identifier lengths 
etc. character count correlates a good bit with what you suggest are 
good measures for code length.