Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lispperformance was Re: problems with lisp

[Pascal Costanza <address@hidden>]

Michael Sperber wrote:
>>>>>>"Pascal" == Pascal Costanza <costanza@iai.uni-bonn.de> writes:
> 
> 
> Pascal> Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> 
>>>Pascal Costanza <costanza@iai.uni-bonn.de> asks in what I can only
>>>hope is a fit of passion overcoming rational thought:
> 
> Pascal> >
> 
>>>>Why should it be important to cover all cases?
>>>
>>>Because programming language designers should not think they are a
>>>whole lot smarter than the programmers who will use their language.
>>>(Note: This wording even accommodates the design of Arc.)
> 
> 
> Pascal> I totally agree. Are language designers who don't include loop
> Pascal> constructs in a language a "whole lot smarter" than the programmers
> Pascal> who will use their language?
> 
> You keep changing your standpoint:  Previously, you were saying that
> programming languages should restrict the ways people can form
> loop-like programs.  (Or at least you were creating a strong
> impression that you were.)  Now you're saying it's about including
> additional abstractions.  Which is it?

The latter.

What I wanted to say is that when your LOOP expressions get more 
complicated you should either stop using LOOP and look for another 
solution, or think about simplifying your data structure, or both.

But I understand by now why my statements have given a different impression.


Pascal

-- 
Pascal Costanza               University of Bonn
mailto:costanza@web.de        Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de  Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)