4 ms·
> the 2nd language is better, it can create an identical configuration in less lines. A simple macro or syntax sugar could save you the same lines. A good lang
by Retra 11y ago
> the 2nd language is better, it can create an identical configuration in less lines.
A simple macro or syntax sugar could save you the same lines. A good language will give you a good, terse syntax for representing common configurations, and enough flexibility for clearly denoting the uncommon ones. If your configuration is particularly obscure, it should need more lines to express.
It is not worth sacrificing verifiable correctness to induce this kind of gain when there are better ways of doing it.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoBe careful, 'lest your macro language itself turn Turing-complete. > It is not worth sacrificing verifiable correctness to induce this kind of gain when there are better ways of doing it. It's also important to remember it's not always worth sacrificing power to gain verifiable correctness. Not every class of problems needs it. "Freedom for security", something something. ;).