Yes, what you did should certainly be called "Intentional programming" (or "Intention revealing programming") instead of "literate programming".
This style of programming is for example encouraged by the book "Clean Code" of Robert C. Martin. I like this style of programming, I too think it is clear, and makes a good use of the compiler that prevents any "comment" (considering the function names are the old "comments) from being not up to date ! :-) The difficulty, as always, is in finding the "right balance" ! HTH, -- Laurent On Jan 2, 11:51 pm, "Mark Volkmann" <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Randall R Schulz <rsch...@sonic.net> wrote: > > > > > On Friday 02 January 2009 14:23, Christian Vest Hansen wrote: > >> What is it that makes this code "literate"? > > > I don't know whether or not you're familiar with the concept of Literate > > Programming. If you are, then you can judge for yourself whether that > > code qualifies as literate. If not, check out some of these references: > > > - <http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/lp.html> > > - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming> > > - <http://www.literateprogramming.com/> > > - <http://www.literateprogramming.com/knuthweb.pdf> > > - <http://vasc.ri.cmu.edu/old_help/Programming/Literate/literate.html> > > > Many more are out there. > > Thanks Randall! Clearly what I'm doing doesn't fit the definition of > literate programming. Maybe I can claim that it's "literate style" > based on this part of the definition: > > "The main idea is to treat a program as a piece of literature, > addressed to human beings rather than to a computer." > > What I'm trying to do is break the code up into a number of helper > functions so the the functions that use them are easier to read. For > example, here's a snippet of my code (including a questionable use of > def that will be changed soon): > > (if (snake :alive) > (if (adjacent-or-same-cell? (snake-head) (apple :cell)) > (do > (def apple (make-apple)) > (move-snake true) > (if (= (snake-length) *length-to-win*) > (new-game "You win!"))) > (move-snake false)) > (new-game "You killed the snake!")) > > I should probably change the arguments to move-snake to be more > meaningful. You get the idea though. What I'm trying to avoid is > deeply nested function definitions with lots of long argument lists > and anonymous functions. > > -- > R. Mark Volkmann > Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
