+1 In the grand scheme of things, using `eval` to solve a problem (because you want to get something done now) is nowhere near as bad as, say, using/building an interpreter that is implemented in C (because I want to get something done "now", circa 1995).
:) At Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:38:24 -0400, Sean Kanaley wrote: > ***The ultimate (programming) concern is what will produce the highest > average correct-and-useful-running-program-output per second over my > lifespan.*** > > (philosophical extensions: provided it doesn't hurt other people, unless > they are "bad", where bad = ...etc...) > > Or anyone else who programs. The average decreases when something new is > learned, and increases later as a payoff from the new knowledge > (ideally...). This is especially important to experts in other fields who > want a quick solution instead of a theoretically maximally correct and > beautiful and least upsetting to experts solution. > > So I didn't need keyword-apply. I had the following choices: > > 1. build literal expression, call eval (~1 min dev time) > > 2. search documentation or google for "apply keyword", reach page of > documentation, *carefully* read all relevant-sounding functions on it, > choose keyword apply, THEN implement it (~10+ min?) (in reality after > trying apply for a bit since it seems like it would work, and for fear of > just using eval and being branded a C programmer, eventually concluding it > can't work = additional 5 min) > > 3. make a mistake with step 2, make post to user's list asking about this > case, receive feedback that it wasn't necessary to use it, go back and fix > code to be "correct" (unsure of time to type the first post, but the > overall energy spent on this process exceeds #1 and #2 for sure) > > In my case, I'm glad I now know about keyword-apply because I will be using > Racket until I die. Those 15 minutes will *hopefully* save over 15 minutes > by the end of my life. They might not though, and time now > time later, > but I'm still glad because I enjoy programming as a hobby and want to be > good at it, but in terms of maximizing output I should have just used eval. > > Taken further, there is some optimal level of knowledge that allows for all > tasks that need to be completed to be completed as quickly and accurately > as possible, where further knowledge represents time spent wasted acquiring > it. Professionals in fields other than programming itself will probably > have a low level of optimal knowledge, and the attitude that some seem to > have about "dumb newbies with their dumb evals" is incorrect. They should > possibly do whatever is as fast as possible, regardless of how bad the code > is. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
