Re: Changes to Euphoria
CChris wrote:
> How do you get minimalism in a language without terse syntax, and many lines
> to implement the simplest construct?
Chris, I'm not just glad you asked this question I'm ecstatic. My cable
modem is flaking our on me at the moment, so I hope I can respond in one shot.
There's a lot of confusion being expressed about what minimalism is and
frankly, I think different people have a different definition. But for me
it's embodied in the phrase that some may have difficulty parsing...
...as simple as possible, no simpler.
I don't hold completely to the first part. To me, 'as possible' is not
to be taken to extreme. For me, the no simpler part is the deal braker.
Regarding terseness, some people think minimalist refers to key strokes.
It doesn't. It refers to functionality. Being able to read your own code
a week later also plays into it. So do I want to eliminate FOR loops?
Never. They are very practical and easy to comprehend. But the most
important point from a minimalist perspective is they do add something
that is near and dear to a minimalists heart... they reduce clutter!
Perhaps some will say I'm not a pure minimalist and perhaps they are right.
But I hold the principle of less clutter in very high regard.
Take for example strings. VB strings are horrible. You don't want to do
string manipulation in a loop. The performance impact is incredible. How
do I know? Because I've written a string class that I use in situations
that require performance and it gives me about a 20x increase in speed.
A minimalist keeps his focus on results. How am I able to day in and day
out produce over a thousand lines of good code in VB? I couldn't if the
language didn't have sufficient capability that I was constantly having to
invent the functionality. I also couldn't do it if my job involved
interface work all the time, which involves research; an entirely different
thing from being creative in a language or writing business logic.
Give me functionality. Don't put roadblocks in my way. One roadblock that
reduces my efficiency as a programmer is twelve ways to do essentially the
same thing.
I'm a very safe driver, but I don't have to think much to do it. I've been
described by programmers I work with as writing rock solid, bullet proof
code. I don't have to expend an extreme amount of concentration to do that
either. Because my tool is comfortable and has sufficient functionality in
most cases. Where it fails, I try to create a solution, like my string
class.
I'm not the fastest coder. I worked with some phenominal people that make
me look like a sloth where lines of code produced daily are concerned.
But for me (and YMMV) being a practical minimalist makes me very
efficient. I like that.
I have another expression I use. Supermen make bad programmers. Always
trying to be smarter than the other guy. Writing tricky code. My code
is hardly ever tricky. I'm writing to an audience of other professionals
that I have a high regard for. So I try to write as clear as I am able.
Terseness often makes code harder to read. So I like it simple, but not
too simple. In this case I'm not specifically refering to functionality.
I hope I've given you some insight into my thought process.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
