Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
LOOPy idiocy
20 views
Skip to first unread message
WJ
Mar 15, 2012, 1:54:22 PM3/15/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> The MAP and sequence functions and other iterative macros
> can be defined fairly easily using LOOP.
>
> The cost of supported non-loop code with any efficiency requires a vast
> amount of compile-time AND a lot of runtime optimizers.
> LOOP requires only a lot of compiler optimizers.
>
> The documentation burden for all the sequence and map functions
> is also quite large, and for the novice the huge manual is intimidating,
> and doesn't give students confidence they understand how to use the
> language until the know about all those functions.
> In addition, one can't understand other peoples code that uses them,
> so even beyond-beginners have limited ability to use and reuse others code.
>
> Therefore, my opinion is that a new language standard that
> could free itself from the heavy burden of backward compatibility
> and historical baggage, would define ONLY LOOP in the language.
> > Well, in CLTL2 extended-LOOP is 34 pages and the Iteration section
> > including the Mapping functions is only 10 pages.
>
> The MAPxxx functions essentially require understanding functional arguments,
> in particular closures #'(lambda ..). So the documentation and learnability
> burden is really quite larger than a page count indicates.
> can be defined fairly easily using LOOP.
>
> The cost of supported non-loop code with any efficiency requires a vast
> amount of compile-time AND a lot of runtime optimizers.
> LOOP requires only a lot of compiler optimizers.
>
> The documentation burden for all the sequence and map functions
> is also quite large, and for the novice the huge manual is intimidating,
> and doesn't give students confidence they understand how to use the
> language until the know about all those functions.
> In addition, one can't understand other peoples code that uses them,
> so even beyond-beginners have limited ability to use and reuse others code.
>
> Therefore, my opinion is that a new language standard that
> could free itself from the heavy burden of backward compatibility
> and historical baggage, would define ONLY LOOP in the language.
> > Well, in CLTL2 extended-LOOP is 34 pages and the Iteration section
> > including the Mapping functions is only 10 pages.
>
> The MAPxxx functions essentially require understanding functional arguments,
> in particular closures #'(lambda ..). So the documentation and learnability
> burden is really quite larger than a page count indicates.
0 new messages