[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]
On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Abigail wrote: > Why stop at 'if' and 'unless'? Given a 'while', why bother having a > 'for'? You have it backwards. for(;;) provides *semantics* that can't be easily provided by while(), so it's more "given a 'for', why bother having a 'while'", and there's been a few C programmers who eschew while() as a result. Though I have to say that I've come around to seeing "#define EVER ;;" as hateful. But you're missing the point. "while()" and "for(;;)" are not "more than one way of doing things". "if" and "unless" are not "more than one way of doing things". In both cases, these are "one way of doing things, with two different syntaxes". When you look at languages that really *have* the kind of flexibility that allows the programmer to create "more than one way of doing things", Perl looks like a little kid showing up at the office with his dad's tie and boots and claiming he can do the job. Compare generators in Icon or Smalltalk, or using introspection and reflection to *create* new control structures like 'if' and 'unless' and 'while' and 'for' in Lisp-family languages, or the ultimate machine-code-to-4gl flexibility in Forth, to Perl's rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, and you'll begin to see just how hateful this bogus claim about Forth really is.There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52