On 23/10/2009 19:49, Pelle Månsson wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
Hell no. This is why I hate certain programming languages.
if you are trying to obfuscate the language than why not just define:
rtqfrdsg and fdkjtkf as the function names?
Don't be silly. In my dlibs "xsomething" are the lazy functions, and
"something" are the strict ones. That's not obfuscated, you need
seconds to learn a single easy rule.
Bye,
bearophile
I think the complaint was not as much about the x as the iota.
Seriously, iota?
However, I like the array(range(0,10)) where range is always lazy, and
array forces eagerness, better than separate xrange and range functions.
first thing xsomthing *is* silly and I agree with andrei and pelle about
having an array function that forces eagerness.
but more generally speaking, each individual part can be rationalized
like xsomething is lazy, iota generates a lazy range, etc.. but combined
you get meaningless letters.. xaiota?
rule 1 of programming - code is read 1000 times more then written.
today at the age of terabyte HDDs writing strcmp instead of
string_compare or stringCompare (depends on your love for camels) is
absolutely ridiculous.
