Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #91169

Re: "C++ on the Move" by Darryl K. Taft

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> ... I think it isn't too hard to
>>> think and write procedurally in Erlang, if one chooses to do so.
>>> Granted, most people writing Erlang don't do that, but that is
>>> not due to inherent limitations in the language.  It would be
>>> harder, for example, to think and write procedurally in APL.
>>
>> Sounds odd, but then I don't know Erlang at all well.  APL has
>> assignable variables and branching.  What is the major barrier to
>> writing procedurally in APL?
>>
>> I'm not disputing that one could think and write procedurally in Erlang
>> (I really don't know), but I'd say that Haskell would a better example
>> of a language that makes it hard.  I think you'd have to code up the
>> denotational semantics of small procedural language to write procedural
>> in Haskell.
>
> Disclaimer:  I have some experience programming in both APL and
> Haskell, but am by no means an expert in either language.
>
> I'm not sure whether it would be harder to write procedural-style
> code in Haskell than in APL.  Whether it is or not, my intention was
> only to offer one example, not necessarily the best example.
>
> As to why APL is hard to write in procedurally, I would say it has
> poor support for some of the important elements of procedural
> languages.  Control flow in APL is clumsy.  APL does allow procedures,
> but they are limited compared to, for example, functions in C.  Much
> of the programming done in procedural languages is used to operate on
> data structures, but APL doesn't have good facilities for general data
> structures.
>
> To explain this another way, consider any moderately sized C program
> (1500 lines or more, just to pick a number), and imagine trying to
> re-write it in APL.  Chances are the program would need to be not just
> re-written but completely re-designed.  And the resulting program
> would very likely not look very procedural-ish.
>
> Does this explanation help clarify my statement?

Yes.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: "C++ on the Move" by Darryl K. Taft Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 09:52 -0700
  Re: "C++ on the Move" by Darryl K. Taft Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-20 21:01 +0100

csiph-web