On Jan 20, 2008 8:16 PM, Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think my version conveys more meaning in fewer characters. So you may > ask: what about programmers who aren't familiar with the syntax? Well, I > opine that they ought to learn it because it's very expressive. If you > don't know that syntax, it might mean you have a misunderstanding of how > your language deals with boolean expressions (not to mention its > assignment operator), which is quite fundamental to any language. > Yes, these are great examples. However, there is no way to guaranty the experience level of others who may see our code. Also, there are many times when it's not just about experience level. It's about what we are thinking and how we are thinking about our code and solving the problem at hand. Sometimes we may need to write our code in "long hand" if you will just to keep things straight in our minds and keep us on the path to the solution. Another thought. If the problem is solved, isn't our code OK? Unless your code is for a school assignment or you have a micro-managing boss, there isn't anyone who goes around checking our code (with the possible exception of ourselves). The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement. But it we solve the problem, no matter how efficient our code is, we have achieved our goal.
Again, my humble $.02. > > > -- > Scott Hill > > Food for thought: > An eagle may soar but a weasel will never get sucked into a jet engine. > A closed mouth gathers no foot. > Never squat with your spurs on. _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
