>> 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.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message