Re: routine_id evaluation
People,
The controlling philosophy (for better or worse) is "define it before you
use it."
Interestingly, I used to arrange my C code in exactly the OPPOSITE order, on
the theory that placing the highest-level code (and comments) at the top of
a file, and carefully choosing meaningful names for subroutines, would give
a visiting reader the quickest and best idea of what the code was doing,
overall.
I tend to agree that it is a silly, stupid bother to have to arrange your
code in a particular order just to suit the philosophy of the language
designer, when other philosophies of arguably equal validity are extant, and
IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE in the execution of the program!
Those who disagree strongly enough with Rob's philosophy are free to create
their own "uforia sect." (And hey, you has a choice between "uforia" as a
colloquial reference to the language, or the consistently misspelled
"Euhporia." I'd rather be colloquial with ease of typing than to make it
look like I'm trying to type the name correctly and failing. Sort of like,
I'd rather be called "geo" than "Goerge," on a regular basis. You may call
me "geo" if you finds "George" a difficult type. But I digress.) Uforia
sectarians can cobble up their own translators with whatever variant
behaviors they please.
geo
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
