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

Re: Vectors as functions

> 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

    Maybe not in the traditional sense of one set of always-available
features that satisfies everybody; but I'm thinking of the crude but
simple idea of simply disabling or enabling features on some scale,
from procedure to project.  What wouldn't work about a language that
allowed, for example, call/cc, dynamic binding, or any other feature
to be turned on and off, in effect reshaping the language to the needs
of the task at hand?  (Of course there's the small matter of publicly
available libraries and what subset of features they would be written
to, but that's a Real World problem and not relevant here :-).