[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, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> One of the best things about this list is that people here realize
>> 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
> 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.