[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: [ANN] GSL Shell new beta release with anti-gran graphics module
- From: "John Hind" <john.hind@...>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:11:21 -0000
Yes, high information density is a very mixed benefit IMHO. The higher the density the more likely a typo will produce valid, but incorrect code. How may man-centuries have been wasted tracking down C++ bugs caused by confusing logical equality with assignment?
Those of us who are engineers rather than mathematicians recognise the value of a little redundancy!
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Jerome Vuarand
Sent: 04 December 2009 18:41
To: Lua list
Subject: Re: [ANN] GSL Shell new beta release with anti-gran graphics module
2009/12/4 Paul Hudson <email@example.com>:
> 2009/12/3 Norman Ramsey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> The information density for the Haskell syntax is much higher.
> Regarding syntax that has higher information density as 'better" would seem
> to lead you inexorably to APL (or J). It's not clear to me that higher
> information density is a positive for this idea.
For code writing at least, if you can type while thinking, all you
need is to be able to type faster than you think. Once either your raw
typing speed combined with the language information density reaches
that threshold, you don't need more information density. For me, Lua
is dense enough, be it because it's quite succinct, because I type
fast enough, or because I'm a slow thinker. Information density is
only part of the problem.
For code reading, if you have to take into account the background
experience of all potential audience, I'm not sure there is a single
solution (or even a good one).