Subject: RE: DSSSL side effect-freeness From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:19:15 -0500 (EST) |
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Frank A. Christoph wrote: > So this is an argument for side effect-freeness? OK, I see your point about > being able to apply only part of the style spec. I don't see what this has > to do with the grove being distributed, though -- and I can't imagine > distributed groves being a typical case anyway. Distributedness just makes the grove seem bigger. :) :) Seriously, I wanted to emphasize not only the size, but the bandwidth requirements of applying the whole stylesheet to the whole grove. The DSSSL way requires a few cross-machine queries, but very little actual data will typically cross the net. > So, assuming we've ruled out side effects, what is the argument against > laziness? Guessing: 1. Implementation simplicity. 2. Scheme compatibility. 3. Leaves open the door for side-effectful supersets (like Jade!) (debug ). 4. It's what most programmers expect anyhow -- few of us get to use lazy languages so most don't "know what they are missing." For instance I had to think hard to come up with a situation where a lazy language would be better because I am so used to thinking in terms of eager ones. Most of the examples of lazy programming I see are counters and other things that I don't use much day-to-day or else that I automatically wrap in a lambda without thinking about it... Paul Prescod DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: DSSSL side effect-freeness, Pierre Mai | Thread | Re: DSSSL side effect-freeness, W. Eliot Kimber |
[no subject], Paul Prescod | Date | Detecting Infinite Looping, W. Eliot Kimber |
Month |