While I agree with the thesis that appears to be implicit in your post (that only real-world problem solving can provide a truly comprehensive measure of a language's benefits), that's not terribly useful for discussion with "hard" data on hand. As such, I've gone a little closer to the scientific method approach by trying to work with a series of clearly defined, strictly regulated mini-tests that each focus on specific characteristics of languages while minimizing the problem of additional, unnecessary variables. As such, for this particular test, I'm looking for fewer untargeted variables in the test, not more of them.
This unfortunately tends to result in a test whose conditions appear somewhat arbitrary and extraneous, until one considers the fact that the conditions are sorta the point.
If, however, you think another approach than using @ARGV would be better, I certainly encourage you to modify my code (or write code from scratch) to improve upon my original, and if you have suggestions for addressing the needs of this little test directly as opposed to attempting to turn it into a real-world problem, I'm open to that as well.
|
- apotheon
CopyWrite Chad Perrin |
In reply to Re^2: list reversal closure
by apotheon
in thread list reversal closure
by apotheon
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |