4 ms·
He's not talking about machine level code. He's talking about while loops in regular programming. I don't think the person was aware that there are paradigms th
by lerptime 6y ago
He's not talking about machine level code. He's talking about while loops in regular programming. I don't think the person was aware that there are paradigms that avoid looping.
To be more pedantic and get even lower level than machine code, at the theoretical level the basis of computation can be either procedural or functional. See lambda calculus and Turing machine for more info.
- buzzerbetrayed 6y agoYou don't think Uncle Bob knows there are paradigms that avoid looping? Sorry, but that is absurd. This isn't some random internet blogger. Uncle Bob has proven himself knowledgable enough to know something as basic as that, even if he is a controversial figure. And please let me know if "the person" refers to someone else. I've read the comment chain all the way up and can only make sense of what you said if "the person" == Uncle Bob.
- lerptime 6y agoI don't know about uncle bob. But certainly what he said is untrue. Programming doesn't even have "while loops" as a primitive. From that wrong statement I assume uncle bob doesn't know much. Of course I could be wrong. I don't know the guy. But that statement alone is enough for me to make a negative judgement against him.
- commandlinefan 6y agoWell, all electronic computers all the way back to the Mark II have had unconditional branches (jumps) and conditional branches: I guess you're strictly correct that "while loops" aren't technically primitives, but conditional branches are and the only reason you'd ever use one is to perform the equivalent of an if or a while.