Re: Vectors as functions

[address@hidden]

> Mike, I'm beginning to lose your drift (indeed, I fear I lost it a
> long time ago).  I saw your messages as general pleas for more
> programmer freedom in languages.  The responses I've seen (and
> written) have been trying to say that there are usually good reasons
> for the constraints that languages impose, not mere ignorance or
> fascism...So, what is your point?
>
> Shriram

Shriram,

    <ad hominem>I'm puzzled by your apparent frustration.  It seems I'm
rubbing you the wrong way somehow; please understand I don't mean to
annoy you.  It's probably not helping your annoyance that you
misunderstand what I was saying and don't believe I understood your
arguments.  I thought I was pretty clear in acknowledging that I
understand the reasons for the constraints and that they are good
reasons.  I never implied that there was any fascism or ignorance
behind these constraints.  With that said, perhaps we can return to a
discussion of ideas.  Its always a surprise and a disappointment to me
when a discussion turns away from ideas and towards the personal. 
There's no need or call for incivility.  Also in a public list the
invocation of "we" seems quite calculated to be exclusionary.</ad
hominem>

    My point is I don't see why programmer constraints that help
optimization, code analysis, etc., and their opposite freedoms cannot
coexist in one language as choices a programmer can make with
knowledge of the tradeoffs, rather than being made by the language
designer.  Certainly there are many optimizations applied by compilers
optionally, depending on the local circumstances.