On Sunday, 3 February 2008 at 12:25:17 UTC, Michiel Helvensteijn
wrote:
bearophile wrote:
LINQ (and its future parallel extensions), with its additional
syntax, may
be a good thing to add to D:
http://www.moserware.com/2008/02/for-loops-using-i-i-enumerators-or-none.html
You can use the same syntax to simplify parallel code, DB
access code,
etc.
Can't D already do this?
It has lazy evaluation of function literals, so the container
class just has
to implement the count method.
Even C++ can do this, though it looks more messy.
Anyway, I disagree with the author about (at least) two things.
* I am one of those people that use the pre-increment operator
in for-loops.
I know it doesn't improve performance for integers, but it does
for
iterators. So I just use it everywhere for consistency.
* While I agree that when a foreach-loop is possible, you
should use it, it
can never completely replace the for-loop, because it is simply
less
powerful. Any number of sorting/searching algorithms still need
for-loops.
Really?!
for loops can be easily replaced by functional alternatives
map/reduce.
With tail call optimizations you can even replace them by
recursive calls without performance loss.
--
Paulo
