On 12-Sep-08 15:22, Invisible wrote:
>>> I wouldn't exactly call that straightfoward either. It's not 
>>> *actually* complicated, but it sure *looks* pretty baffling.
>>
>>   But the haskell code is normal, regular haskell. Your C example is
>> not code any sane person would write.
> 
> Mmm, and you think any sane Haskell programmer would implement the 
> Fibonaci numbers that way in a real program? It's an interesting 
> teaching example, but seriously, if you *want* Fibonacci numbers for 
> some reason, there is a simple, well-known O(1) algorithm for that.
> 
>>> Alternatively,
>>
>>>    while(*v++ = *s++);
>>
>>> I mean, what THE HELL...?
>>
>>   At least it's easy to understand what it does (and why it works) when
>> it's explained. The haskell example isn't.
> 
> Really? I mean, it's a little perplexing that the computer is actually 
> able to unravel it without getting stuck, but once you understand what 
> the machine is doing internally, it's not so hard.
> 
You mean that you not only understands how it works, but it even helped 
you understand how compilers work?

Post a reply to this message