Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a level in Hell reserved for _______

mostly because I'm not fond of the idea that the amount of indentation of a line defining semantics rather than just reflecting them

In principle, I'm not fond of it either. However, it has not once inconvenienced me in the slightest. Maybe it's just force of habit that keeps us tied to certain languages. So I'd say try it out, if it does get in your way there are many other obvious alternatives ;-). Also, if anyone has examples of running into whitespace problems in python, I'd be very interested (I haven't been programming in it for that long either).

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes

Not at all, I meant the "5 points off" bit as a joke :). I know a fair number of python programmers and I'd label about 60% of them 'zealots.' Mind you, I'd probably label about the same number of Perl programmers 'zealots.' Don't even get me started on Java programmers... ;-)

Oh, and as far as having programmed in every language is concerned - I guess that's impossible

Yeah, that was a trick. I really work for NIMH. Anyone who claimed they did know every single programming language has been committed (regardless of whether or not they were telling the truth ;).

Anyhow, why do you think switch (or goto, for that matter) is a low-level language concept?

Mostly because I've found that using dispatch hashes eliminates the need for them. I'm sure there's still a couple good uses, but sometimes I wonder if when a feature is that abused it wouldn't be better just to eliminate it. Yes, it's catering to the lowest common denominator and It would probably annoy all those write-25000-lines-of-assembly-before-breakfast kind of programmers, but my sanity would greatly appreciate it :).

Speaking of breakfast, gotta run. Have a nice day :)

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a level in Hell reserved for ________

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: There's a level in Hell reserved for ________ by mowgli (Friar) on Mar 04, 2003 at 13:12 UTC
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. Not at all, I meant the "5 points off" bit as a joke :). I know a fair number of python programmers and I'd label about 60% of them 'zealots.' Mind you, I'd probably label about the same number of Perl programmers 'zealots.' Don't even get me started on Java programmers... ;-) chuckles I'll try not to - I've had my own share of experience with Java zealots, although those who actually are Smalltalk zealots and just have to use Java at work even though they despise it deep in their hearts are even worse. `;)` Oh, and as far as having programmed in every language is concerned - I guess that's impossible. Yeah, that was a trick. I really work for NIMH. Anyone who claimed they did know every single programming language has been committed (regardless of whether or not they were telling the truth ;). You do? Interesting. `:)` Anyhow, I can see why these people end up with you (especially those were the claim is actually true). `;)` Anyhow, why do you think switch (or goto, for that matter) is a low-level language concept? Mostly because I've found that using dispatch hashes eliminates the need for them. I'm sure there's still a couple good uses, but sometimes I wonder if when a feature is that abused it wouldn't be better just to eliminate it. Yes, it's catering to the lowest common denominator and It would probably annoy all those write-25000-lines-of-assembly-before-breakfast kind of programmers, but my sanity would greatly appreciate it :). Mmmm, I can't recall any assembly that features a switch instruction right now, unless you want to count C in as assembly (which has been described as an optimizing macro assembler with automatic register allocation in the past g). Seriously, though, I think that `switch` isn't that bad really; not all uses of `switch` boil down to (admittedly horrible, yet strangely fascinating) things like Duff's device. Besides, the Camel says that the main reason for not including switch was simply that there were many alternatives, from labelled bareblocks to `foreach` loops and from cascaded `?:` operators to hashes - nothing hints that the exclusion of a proper `switch` statement might have been made due to it being too abused (or too easily abusable). But IMO, it's all TMTOWTDI anyway - and I encourage languages to give you enough rope to hang yourself with, since that also means you'll have enough rope to tie the most beautiful and elaborate knots. Speaking of breakfast, gotta run. Have a nice day :) Heh. Thanks, and the same to you! `^_^` -- mowgli	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: There's a level in Hell reserved for ________
by mowgli (Friar) on Mar 04, 2003 at 13:12 UTC

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes.
Not at all, I meant the "5 points off" bit as a joke :). I know a fair number of python programmers and I'd label about 60% of them 'zealots.' Mind you, I'd probably label about the same number of Perl programmers 'zealots.' Don't even get me started on Java programmers... ;-)

*chuckles* I'll try not to - I've had my own share of experience with Java zealots, although those who actually are Smalltalk zealots and just have to use Java at work even though they despise it deep in their hearts are even worse. ;)

Oh, and as far as having programmed in every language is concerned - I guess that's impossible.
Yeah, that was a trick. I really work for NIMH. Anyone who claimed they did know every single programming language has been committed (regardless of whether or not they were telling the truth ;).

You do? Interesting. :) Anyhow, I can see why these people end up with you (*especially* those were the claim is actually true). ;)

Anyhow, why do you think switch (or goto, for that matter) is a low-level language concept?
Mostly because I've found that using dispatch hashes eliminates the need for them. I'm sure there's still a couple good uses, but sometimes I wonder if when a feature is that abused it wouldn't be better just to eliminate it. Yes, it's catering to the lowest common denominator and It would probably annoy all those write-25000-lines-of-assembly-before-breakfast kind of programmers, but my sanity would greatly appreciate it :).

Mmmm, I can't recall any assembly that features a switch instruction right now, unless you want to count C in as assembly (which has been described as an optimizing macro assembler with automatic register allocation in the past *g*). Seriously, though, I think that switch isn't that bad really; not all uses of switch boil down to (admittedly horrible, yet strangely fascinating) things like Duff's device. Besides, the Camel says that the main reason for not including switch was simply that there were many alternatives, from labelled bareblocks to foreach loops and from cascaded ?: operators to hashes - nothing hints that the exclusion of a proper switch statement might have been made due to it being too abused (or too easily abusable).

But IMO, it's all TMTOWTDI anyway - and I encourage languages to give you enough rope to hang yourself with, since that also means you'll have enough rope to tie the most beautiful and elaborate knots.

Speaking of breakfast, gotta run. Have a nice day :)

Heh. Thanks, and the same to you! ^_^

--
mowgli

[reply]