[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vectors as functions

On Freitag, August 15, 2003, at 07:36  Uhr, mike@newhall.net wrote:

>> One of the best things about this list is that people here realize 
>> that
>> such purely theoretical concerns are not the only ones that matter.
>     I guess I don't belong on this list then?  I think you are 
> overlooking
> the perspective that ultimately, theoretical can be very practical.
> For example, there is a school of thought that orthogonal systems are
> more flexible and useful than non-orthogonal systems (Scheme versus
> Java or C++, for example).  If true I think it is useful and relevant
> to pursue such questions.

Yes, _some_ orthogonal elements of systems are more flexible and 
useful, but this doesn't mean that orthogonality should be a means to 
its own end. You have to show what orthogonality buys you in specific 

I don't see the advantages of modelling vectors as functions, 
especially if you mix up reading from and writing to a vector.

Furthermore, doesn't this make the language more unorthogonal? For 
simple variables one would still need to distinguish between reading 
and writing via set! or setf or the likes.


P.S.: To make this clear: I like eperimental language design. Sometimes 
you can get advantages that you haven't thought of before. But in this 
specific case I have strong doubts.