Re: Inline VALOF

["Barry Cook" <Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian,

It is a good let-out, except that one man's necessity is another frivolity 
and 'good' is very subjective.

Adam has a reason to want change. Denis has a reason to introduce an 
alternative notation. But are they 'good' reasons?

I can see why they should be considered good reasons:
- Adam finds it difficult to parse the syntax - and this is likely to lead 
to errors in doing so. We will all need to rely on the parser getting it 
right so anything that makes it easier and less error-prone is a good reason 
to make a change.
- Denis suggests a more familiar notation and that is likely to result in 
programmers using it correctly and improving the chance of their programs 
being correct - that seems like a good reason to make a change.

BUT those are just my personal subjective analyses of the proposals and 
others could suggest equally (or more) valid reasons why these proposals are 
bad. Who is to judge? How?

In practice I find occam's razor is extremely difficult (impossible?) to 
apply.

      Barry.

Dr Barry M. Cook, BSc, PhD, CEng, MBCS, CITP, MIEEE
CTO,
4Links Limited,
The Mansion,
Bletchley Park,
MK3 6ZP,
UK.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A.E.Lawrence" <A.E.Lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Barry Cook" <Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Denis A Nicole" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Inline VALOF


> Barry Cook wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Perhaps we should be selective in applying Occam's razor - there are
> > many things that are more 'complex' than they need to be but that
> > 'complexity' introduces convenience which is of more value.
> >
> > Examples:
> > - Differential calculus - we COULD stick with "the limit as x tends to
> > zero"
> > - High-level programming languages - we COULD do it all with assembler
> > - occam (see above)
>
> Barry,
>
> Aren't you forgetting the "without necessity/ unless there is a good
> reason" (apologies for my pigeon translation) qualification in "the
> razor". So I don't think your examples are applicable, are they?
>
> Adrian