5 ms·
Your example is a tad too simplistic. Literally everyone would just write z = x + y; inline Why parameterize needlessly? If you're saying that list comprehen
by tezza 15y ago
Your example is a tad too simplistic.
Literally everyone would just write z = x + y; inline
Why parameterize needlessly?
If you're saying that list comprehensions are clearer in functional form, I would suggest a more appropriate comparison.
How about:
* drawing some text on a bitmap in lines
* building a list of nodes and doing a Minimal-Spanning-Tree
I don't think they'd be much clearer.
- nickik 15y agoDo that in Java and Haskell (with the same amount of library support) and show me how the java version is simpler. I would really like to see that. (you can take clojure or scala too)