>   From: Paul Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>>    And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax for arrays
>>    and general functions, because different behavior is expected
>>    for the two.

>   That argument would suggest that you should use a different
>   syntax for each different implementation of an abstract data
>   type.  (Since their performance tradeoffs are usually different.)
>   Do you advocate that?

Ideally, no.  Practically yes.  If compilers were smart enough to
determine which would be the most efficient implementation for the
most abstract version of a function, who would ever want to worry
about such details?  In fact, many algorithms are efficient by
expoiting various features of imperative arrays.  If I want to
encode such an algorithm, I want my performance to be guaranteed
to be no worse than those imperative arrays.  If you deny the
programmer control over efficiency, why use the language?  Oh,
maybe as a specification language, but it certainly won't be used
in industrial strength programming.  Further, in a typical program
I will mix functions that compute values by rules and arrays --
if the compiler has no ability to determine which should be implemented
as which, I certainly should be able to make that specification.

Ken

Reply via email to