optimization of list comprehensions
Thu Mar 9 09:14:47 CET 2006
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
[deleted bits about richard o'keefe's mail reader]
[deleted bits about how silly my example was]
> alas, i am not a researcher (any longer). but maybe i can find
> the time to grep around a bit in the sources.
> You don't have to be a "researcher" to publish..
no, but to find the time to write a paper. maybe we can co-author?
> > But if I understand you, you are claiming that normal industry programmers
> > are incompetent, ineducable, or both.
> no, you do most certainly not understand me. and it actually
> seems you're making a concious effort to misunderstand.
> I may not have understood *you*, but I certainly understood what you
> wrote. You made the (arguably defamatory) claim that "normal industry
> programmers" were unable or unwilling to use a fundamental aspect of
> the language appropriately.
*I* said the "normal industry programmer" prefers to write code (that works
just fine) without using funs. *You* claim that means they're incomptetent.
> i don't think a reluctance to use funs indicates incompetence.
> If we were talking about C++ or Java, you could be right.
> But in a functional language? This is like claiming that a reluctance
> to use classes is compatible with competence in C++.
now, suppose i was a project manager, and some guy managed to write some
excellent C++ code that did just what i wanted, but he didn't use classes. the
code's not very snazzy, but fully readable. if i understand you correctly, you
consider that guy incomptetent, and i don't.
it is perfectly possible to be highly competent in the domain, and write
perfectly fine Erlang, *AND* never use funs (except when using mnesia of course).
> That's nice for you. How about trying to convince others?
yeah, that's a good idea! but maybe trying to do so will cause me to be
flamed by some wierdo, waste a ton of my time, and bore everyone on the mailing
list to tears? so i'll give it a miss.
More information about the erlang-questions