2 ms·

> offer parameterized final case The raw code is more parameterizable than the list, since it is customized with the extremely powerful language "pseudocode".

> offer parameterized final case The raw code is more parameterizable than the list, since it is customized with the extremely powerful language "pseudocode". It does so with no loss of concision and is no less abstracted. > use a rope data structure for the strings It's pseudocode. Change the first line of the loop to `out = rope()` if you care. > you are sorta gut punching c_wraith's code by penalizing haskell for explicit modules and imports for libraries Given I have explicitly excluded this every single time I mention it, I don't know why you are saying this.

KirinDave 9y ago
> The raw code is more parameterizable than the list, since it is customized with the extremely powerful language "pseudocode". It does so with no loss of concision and is no less abstracted. I can't tell if you're joking or not here. But let's pretend you're not. > Given I have explicitly excluded this every single time I mention it, I don't know why you are saying this. Sorry, I thought you were comparing WITH imports to the proper version. In that case the apples-to-apples version comparison is 0.625x (5/8 or 4/7) between your pseudocode and real world code with abstractions. I'm... pretty happy with that! Even the version that uses ropes, can be reused in many contexts, and relies on external and highly tested code is only 1 line longer in all cases. Thank you, I hadn't really considered psuedocode as a valid competitor but now I realize it makes my blog post look a lot better.
- Veedrac 9y ago
  > I can't tell if you're joking or not here. 100% serious. I don't see how you can seriously consider the version that is way more complex and much less flexible "better". > the apples-to-apples version comparison is 0.625x (5/8 or 4/7) between your pseudocode and real world code with abstractions Which code samples are you actually comparing? Because no matter how I try to slice it, the pseudocode I gave is shorter.

KirinDave 9y ago

> The raw code is more parameterizable than the list, since it is customized with the extremely powerful language "pseudocode". It does so with no loss of concision and is no less abstracted. I can't tell if you're joking or not here. But let's pretend you're not. > Given I have explicitly excluded this every single time I mention it, I don't know why you are saying this. Sorry, I thought you were comparing WITH imports to the proper version. In that case the apples-to-apples version comparison is 0.625x (5/8 or 4/7) between your pseudocode and real world code with abstractions. I'm... pretty happy with that! Even the version that uses ropes, can be reused in many contexts, and relies on external and highly tested code is only 1 line longer in all cases. Thank you, I hadn't really considered psuedocode as a valid competitor but now I realize it makes my blog post look a lot better.

Veedrac 9y ago
> I can't tell if you're joking or not here. 100% serious. I don't see how you can seriously consider the version that is way more complex and much less flexible "better". > the apples-to-apples version comparison is 0.625x (5/8 or 4/7) between your pseudocode and real world code with abstractions Which code samples are you actually comparing? Because no matter how I try to slice it, the pseudocode I gave is shorter.