Hi all, I like fry very much, but I've noticed that most of my usages of 'fry' are pretty trivial, stuff like
'[ , foo ] '[ , , foo ] Or sometimes the slightly more elaborate '[ swap , foo ] '[ drop , foo ] I've been trying to reconcile these two facts, and I think I've figured it out. In theory, fry is sort of redundant, because most usages do not really take advantage of its full power. However, often when I'm writing some code, the first iteration is more complex than it needs to be, and in these cases, I will end up with more complex fry forms, stuff like '[ [ , blah ] bi@ ] 2each It seems that a lot of the time, the natural progression of the code simplifies it down to something with a trivial use of fry; I'll change a stack effect here, tweak a tuple there, and suddenly my complex logic evaporates and the complex fry usage along with it. But having fry there makes it easy to get the first iteration going, and to gradually refactor it later, rather than spending time up-front writing complex stack shuffling that I know I won't need anyway. So very often fry acts as a 'programming lubricant' without actually impacting the final code. This is pretty interesting, I think. Just wanted to share this thought... Slava ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
