On 01/31/2011 01:18 AM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
foobar wrote:
ATM, Phobos ranks extremely poorly in this regard. Far worse than C++ which
is by far one of worst ever. both Java and C# are surprisingly high on this
list and are behind various "new-age" scripting languages such as python and
Ruby and languages that were designed to be readable by humans such as
Smalltalk.
I think you've mixed up libraries with languages. Please rephrase so we know
what you're referring to and give specifics.
Seconded. Also there is this one presupposition that reflects poorly on
foobar's argument: that choosing foobar's
preferred convention inherently makes the code more accessible. In fact, a
stronger argument could be made to
the contrary as we're talking about a maximum and 80< 120.
Andrei from the ER
That's just incorrect since I didn't even specify my style convention.
As I said multiple times before, Phobos is design with Andrei in mind: meaning
that if you are Andrei-like (or if you _are_ indeed Andrei) it would be easy to
read and use. Otherwise it confusing as hell and hard to navigate.
But that goes for anyone, including your code. Code written in foobar's
style is designed with foobar in mind: meaning that if you are
foobar-like (or if you _are_ indeed foobar) it would be easy to read and
use. Otherwise it is confusing as hell and hard to navigate.
I can only assume you'd have a hard time writing code that does not have
foobar's signature. Same here.
Besides, it seems to have worked for me; at work I'm not considered one
of the more obfuscated coders. Also, I wrote a little library Loki which
is regarded as very small and readable for what it does. Its
functionality has been shadowed by the much larger and comprehensive
Boost, but Loki's code has always been the simplest and cleanest
although it implements rather advanced concepts. Do you have any
publicly available samples of your work that we might look at?
In addition, you now want to force artificial limits that don't make
any sense.
You completely miss the most important principle - it doesn't matter
how good and efficient your product is if no one's using it. Phobos
is a very good product that I for one will never use. Just looking at
the one huge page for algorithms is enough to discourage many
people.
From what I've seen, everyone who advocates D2 mentions std.algorithm
as one of its main strengths, and never as a liability. I have
difficulty reconciling that signal with one opinion relayed anonymously.
Andrei
