On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 03:02:09PM -0600, BGB wrote: > On 1/1/2013 2:12 PM, Loup Vaillant-David wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 04:36:09PM -0700, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > >>On 12/31/12 2:58 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote: > >>2. The programmer has a belief or preference that the code is easier > >>to work with if it isn't abstracted. […] > >I have evidence for this poisonous belief. Here is some production > >C++ code I saw: > > > > [code snips] > > > >I think the root cause of those three examples can be called "step by > >step thinking". […] > > part of the issue may be a tradeoff: > does the programmer think in terms of abstractions and using > high-level overviews? > or, does the programmer mostly think in terms of step-by-step > operations and make use of their ability to keep large chunks of > information in memory? > > it is a question maybe of whether the programmer sees the forest or > the trees. > > these sorts of things may well have an impact on the types of code a > person writes, and what sorts of things the programmer finds more > readable.
Well, that could be tested. Let's write some code in a procedural way, and in a functional way. Show it to a bunch of programmers, and see if they understand it, spot the bugs, can extend it etc. I'm not sure what to expect from such tests. One could think most people would deal more easily with the procedural program, but on the other hand, I expect the procedural version will be significantly more complex, especially if it abides "step by step" aesthetics. Loup. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
