leledumbo wrote:
OK, I've read http://wiki.freepascal.org/Modernised_Pascal this (and the
FAQ as well). I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good
Vinzent Höfler wrote:
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Mantra: First make it work, then make it fast.
In general that's true from the programmer's viewpoint. But this does
not apply to adding language details because there is no 'first make
it work'. Why obscure important implementation details if
Vinzent Höfler schrieb:
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Mantra: First make it work, then make it fast.
In general that's true from the programmer's viewpoint. But this does
not apply to adding language details because there is no 'first make
it work'. Why obscure important implementation details
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, leledumbo said:
The latter one has iteration overheads, while the former can be optimized to
loop as many as needed. I'm not saying I'm the best Pascal programmer, but
in case there's a (better) solution to this (rather than extending the
In our previous episode, Jeremy Cowgar said:
However IMHO that doesn't meant you are right. One single case of an
optimalization advantage, and then in a border case like iteration over a
constant set does not justify a language extension.
What is the negative of adding it?
Clutter,
Vinzent Höfler schrieb:
I won't judge on the only save some writing here, but generally it
*does* apply to language features: If a particular language feature
helps you writing correct code faster (by supporting you to make it work
instead of relying on your abilities to use the debugger),
On 08 Jan 2009, at 19:01, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
I doubt that. I often stumble over programs which are awfully slow
(Novell Salvage Dialog for examples sometines needs many minutes to
sort 80 objects!). And that compared with the everywhere heard
statement You don't need to think about
OK, I've read http://wiki.freepascal.org/Modernised_Pascal this (and the
FAQ as well). I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good idea). Consider the
In our previous episode, leledumbo said:
The latter one has iteration overheads, while the former can be optimized to
loop as many as needed. I'm not saying I'm the best Pascal programmer, but
in case there's a (better) solution to this (rather than extending the
language) please tell me.
leledumbo schreef:
OK, I've read http://wiki.freepascal.org/Modernised_Pascal this (and the
FAQ as well). I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good
I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good idea). Consider the
following example:
for d in [Monday,Wednesday,Friday] do ;
// versus
for
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good idea).
Consider the
following example:
for d in [Monday,Wednesday,Friday] do ;
the nice thing about pascal, is that compile support different code
compilers syntax: {$mode ...}
if anyone likes, he/she can implement additional {$mode} for the
compiler, right? this new {$mode} can be included into compiler
packages, and if necesssary anyone can rebuild the compiler to support
P.S. Honestly, Pascal (and especially ObjectPascal) already hides quite
some stuff from the programmer. Properties, for example, can hide
potentially costly procedure calls in simple assignment statements.
That's true. But I am not happy about that approach. In the last years
lots of things
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Mantra: First make it work, then make it fast.
In general that's true from the programmer's viewpoint. But this does
not apply to adding language details because there is no 'first make it
work'. Why obscure important implementation details if the only benefit
is
15 matches
Mail list logo