retard wrote:
Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:08:19 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
This is why the basic data structure in functional languages, algebraic
data types, suits better for this purpose.
I think you recently demonstrated otherwise, as proven by the widespread
use of Java :-)
I don't understand your logic -- Widespread use of Java proves that
algebraic data types aren't a better suited way for expressing compiler's
data structures such as syntax trees?
You told me that widespread use of Java proved that nothing more complex than
what Java provides is useful:
"Java is mostly used for general purpose programming so your claims about
usefulness and the need for extreme performance look silly."
I'd be surprised if you seriously meant that, as it implies that Java is the
pinnacle of computer language design, but I can't resist teasing you about it. :-)
