Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> ... that I hate seeing in a popular language. Backwards compatibility for a 
> language already rushed out the door is really a killer, IMO.

> http://vijaymathew.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/dangerous-designs/

  In my little experience, trying to use a programming paradigm (eg. OOP)
with a language which has no specific support for that paradigm (eg.
traditional lisp or scheme, or C) only creates a ton of kludges.

  Also this:

"The argument is that, using a very small number of rules for forming
expressions and with a minimal syntax it is possible to support all
possible programming paradigms. For instance, if the language has
support for higher-order functions, closures and dynamic typing, we
can implement object oriented programming without special language
level syntactic support. Tail-call optimization elude the need for
special looping constructs."

sounds like you could argue in favor of languages like brainfuck which
have a minimal set of instructions, yet are still Turing-complete.

  Eg. just because tail recursion is enough to perform any kind of
looping construct doesn't necessarily mean that special looping constructs
wouldn't be a useful tool.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message