Re: Vectors as functions

[Dan Sugalski <address@hidden>]

At 1:01 PM -0400 8/16/03, mike@newhall.net wrote:
>  > To correct something I've repeatedly seen mentioned in this thread:
>>
>>  [These freedoms] make it hard to optimize also make it hard for
>  > tools to reason about programs.
>
>     These are valuable abilities, but why not let the programmer decide
>when to break optimization-compatibility, etc., when he judges the
>power of the language feature provides a greater benefit than cost?
>
>     I don't think it's a case of "correcting" attitudes, I think you'll
>always encounter a subgroup that believes a lot of freedom is a good
>thing.  It's really a question of two different points of view that
>are both correct, I think.  (I'm not sure they can't be accomodated in
>the same language...)

I'm pretty sure they can't be accommodated in the same language, at 
least in a way that doesn't require compromises in one direction or 
the other. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor an unusual 
one--you choose what's important and make the decisions you need to 
make to get it all to work as best as you can. (Just a simple matter 
of engineering...) The importance of the various factors depends on 
the problems and the people involved, and there really isn't One True 
Solution. It's all a matter of weighted compromise.
-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk