Re: ID field as logical address

"David BL" <davidbl_at_iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:e4e05850-b5dc-4b26-9a38-9ddc98f66cea_at_v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 3:11 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>>
>> When it comes to people who prefer imperative programs because they can
>> see no other way, it ends up meaning religious.
>
> If someone (even very intelligent) /always/ prefers an imperative
> style it suggests both ignorance and a closed mind. I guess you could
> call that attitude "religious" - although I wonder whether it's better
> to reserve that word for blind faith in something unknown rather than
> what's known.
>
> I find the different styles of writing programs fascinating, and wish
> I understood better when and why one approach is simpler than
> another. I certainly don't believe that an imperative style is always
> inferior. Sometimes an ordered sequence of state changes is exactly
> what is appropriate - just like when following a cooking recipe. In
> some situations expressing a sequence of steps indirectly using
> logical declarations as constraints can increase complexity.
>
> I also don't believe that a program should restrict itself to one
> style. An ideal language is simple yet supports a wide range of
> styles. Unfortunately these appear to be conflicting aims.

One shouldn't use a screwdriver to drive a nail, nor a hammer to drive a screw. While it may be possible to do it, there is a significant risk of screwing things up. Received on Thu Jun 04 2009 - 17:19:28 CEST