>>> Why would my o operator not be a one-liner?
>>
>> Because it's defined as four (very wide) lines? :-P
> 
> By how many lines is $ defined by?

One. (See my earlier reply.)

>> In Lisp, you cannot avoid endless brackets, because notionally the 
>> *entire source code* as a single expression. :-P
> 
> Yes, code is data in Lisp.  Ain't that sweet? :)
> 
>> Heh, right. One question: is it statically-typed?
> 
> No.  Like I said, perfect. :)

If it's not statically-typed, how do you know that all your types match 
up correctly?

Oh yeah, that's right - you run it and hope you tested every possible 
code path. Until you release the code, and 3 years later discover that 
hidden away in some corner is a type mismatch.

...or you could have the compiler tell you on the day when you tried to 
compile the code.

Guess which way I prefer? ;-)

>> Haskell is *loaded* with functions that do the same or similar things. 
>> It's about how you want to think about your problem.
> 
> I prefer to design my own DSLs and have a minimalist general-purpose 
> language with few constructs that don't get in the way nor confuse me 
> with conflicting semantics.

Each to their own...

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

Post a reply to this message