Vinzent Höfler wrote:
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Mantra: First make it work, then make it fast.
In general that's true from the programmer's viewpoint. But this does
not apply to adding language details because there is no 'first make
it work'. Why obscure important implementation details if the only
benefit is saving some writing?
I won't judge on the "only save some writing" here, but generally it
*does* apply to language features: If a particular language feature
helps you writing correct code faster (by supporting you to make it
work instead of relying on your abilities to use the debugger), then
it does apply.
The real question is if the (or any other) proposal is "good enough"
to do just that, or if it's really some syntactic sweetener (not even
sugar, sugar at least contains energy). That's something to discuss.
Let me take a rather extreme point of view: After all, all those for-,
while-, and repeat-until-loops are only there to save you from some
typing work[0], because Pascal already has a perfectly good
loop-construct with which you can do all that: goto. Would you agree
here? Probably not.
1) "goto" alone (labels assumed) can not replace any of the loop
constructs. It must be paired with "if" (or anything to check conditions)
2) Otherwise you are of course right. Following this logic however most
programming languages (including pascal and assembler) become redundant.
They have far to many instructions to archive the same thing.
Look at languages like "whitespace" or "brainfuck" and you will see that
a language which is kept simple (by the meaning of "no unneeded
instructions" does not need more than 6 to 8 instructions.
SCNR.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
