[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Inline VALOF


It is a good let-out, except that one man's necessity is another frivolity and 'good' is very subjective.

Adam has a reason to want change. Denis has a reason to introduce an alternative notation. But are they 'good' reasons?

I can see why they should be considered good reasons:
- Adam finds it difficult to parse the syntax - and this is likely to lead to errors in doing so. We will all need to rely on the parser getting it right so anything that makes it easier and less error-prone is a good reason to make a change. - Denis suggests a more familiar notation and that is likely to result in programmers using it correctly and improving the chance of their programs being correct - that seems like a good reason to make a change.

BUT those are just my personal subjective analyses of the proposals and others could suggest equally (or more) valid reasons why these proposals are bad. Who is to judge? How?

In practice I find occam's razor is extremely difficult (impossible?) to apply.


Dr Barry M. Cook, BSc, PhD, CEng, MBCS, CITP, MIEEE
4Links Limited,
The Mansion,
Bletchley Park,
MK3 6ZP,
----- Original Message ----- From: "A.E.Lawrence" <A.E.Lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Barry Cook" <Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Denis A Nicole" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Inline VALOF

Barry Cook wrote:

Perhaps we should be selective in applying Occam's razor - there are
many things that are more 'complex' than they need to be but that
'complexity' introduces convenience which is of more value.

- Differential calculus - we COULD stick with "the limit as x tends to
- High-level programming languages - we COULD do it all with assembler
- occam (see above)


Aren't you forgetting the "without necessity/ unless there is a good
reason" (apologies for my pigeon translation) qualification in "the
razor". So I don't think your examples are applicable, are they?