Jonathan Lang wrote:
Which is not to say that there isn't a time and place when ease of
implementation should trump ease of programming; taking an extreme
example, being able to write a program that consists of the single

  attend my every wish

is the ultimate in terms of ease of programming; it's also impossible
to implement, barring the invention of mind-reading hardware and
sapient artificial intelligence software.  If a small increase in the
programmer's learning curve is the price that must be paid to achieve
a massive reduction in the implementor's workload, it may very well be
worthwhile to foist some of the complexity onto the programmer.

The question is whether or not this is one of those cases.

Addendum: let me note that Perl has a reputation for bending over
backward to accommodate the programmer; as such, the difference in
implementation workloads for the two models that Damian referenced is
going to have to be _very_ severe for "ease of implementation" to win
out over "ease of programming" - IMHO.  Unfortunately for me, MHO
doesn't count as much as DHO.  "Help, help!  I'm being oppressed!"

Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Reply via email to