On 12/25/2011 12:27 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 24 December 2011 at 23:12:27 UTC, bearophile wrote:
I was talking about the abundance of (({}){()}) and not about
identifiers length.
It's the same fallacy.
Not really. Functional style code tends to be conceptually simpler.
Having code that is more readable can help. Getting rid of (({return
{return}}){return()}) makes the code more readable, whereas excessively
shortening identifiers does the opposite.
See here for an example of what bearophile is talking about:
http://pastebin.com/2rEdx0RD
However, I think the slow druntime GC is more of a show stopper for
functional D than any syntactic issues there may be.
I can't read Carmack's mind, but
I'm sure he's talking about shortening code the same way
I would mean it if I said it - simpler concepts, fewer cases,
less repetition.
It's about how much you have to think about, now how much you
have to read/write.
I am quite sure he is talking about character count. I still think you
are right, because for reasonable code with average identifier lengths
etc. character count correlates a good bit with what you suggest are
good measures for code length.
