Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail From: Lewis Perin Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: JSlint finds for loops intolerable Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 19:13:34 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix1.panix.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1472426014 91 166.84.1.1 (28 Aug 2016 23:13:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:13:34 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (berkeley-unix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hNKUJprUUW4nIwugpx/hBKAJdNc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:31201 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: >Lewis Perin writes: >> I meant to include under that rubric not >>just correctly executing the source code, but also understanding what >>the source code was trying to do and satisfying oneself (proving) that >>the code achieves that goal under all circumstances. > > And, since we were discussing »while versus for«: do you believe > that either of these two (»while« and »for«) is adapted better > for this purpose? > No. But once you get beyond this microscopic level, I see no reason to assume that optimizing for human understanding is the same as optimizing for machine verifiability. /Lew --- Lew Perin / perin@acm.org http://babelcarp.org