> Let me take a rather extreme point of view: After all, all those for-,
> while-, and repeat-until-loops are only there to save you from some
> typing work[0], because Pascal already has a perfectly good
> loop-construct with which you can do all that: goto. Would you agree
> here? Probably not.
Vinzent Höfler schrieb:
> Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
>
>>> Mantra: First make it work, then make it fast.
>>
>> In general that's true from the programmer's viewpoint. But this does
>> not apply to adding language details because there is no 'first make
>> it work'. Why obscure important implementat
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, leledumbo said:
The latter one has iteration overheads, while the former can be optimized to
loop as many as needed. I'm not saying I'm the best Pascal programmer, but
in case there's a (better) solution to this (rather than extending the
la
In our previous episode, Jeremy Cowgar said:
> > However IMHO that doesn't meant you are right. One single case of an
> > optimalization advantage, and then in a border case like iteration over a
> > constant set does not justify a language extension.
>
> What is the negative of adding it?
Clutte
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Jeremy Cowgar said:
What is the negative of adding it?
Clutter, maintenance, and somebody has to do both implementation and
maintenance, addition to documentation tool, pretty printer etc.
I wonder how much maintenance would actua
In our previous episode, Jeremy Cowgar said:
> > Clutter, maintenance, and somebody has to do both implementation and
> > maintenance, addition to documentation tool, pretty printer etc.
> >
>
> I wonder how much maintenance would actually have to be done? Once a
> language construct is presen
>Vinzent Höfler schrieb:
> I won't judge on the "only save some writing" here, but generally it
> *does* apply to language features: If a particular language feature
> helps you writing correct code faster (by supporting you to make it work
> instead of relying on your abilities to use the debugge
On 08 Jan 2009, at 19:01, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
I doubt that. I often stumble over programs which are awfully slow
(Novell Salvage Dialog for examples sometines needs many minutes to
sort 80 "objects"!). And that compared with the everywhere heard
statement "You don't need to think abou
