3 ms·
Declarative constraint based programming in this fashion might be nice but that doesn't make the "traditional" way borked. Furthermore I think the author dismi
by DasIch 15y ago
Declarative constraint based programming in this fashion might be nice but that doesn't make the "traditional" way borked.
Furthermore I think the author dismisses the performance problem too easily. The code examples don't give any indication of the algorithmic complexity. I suppose I could determine it, possibly quite easily, if I understood how the compiler works but why would I want to know that?
I expect that this abstraction will make debugging performance problems a nightmare or it will leak the information. I will have to change perspective from "what" to "how" quite frequently which would distract me from my real goal.
I hope to be proven wrong though, this does look interesting.
- evincarofautumn 15y agoFirst, thanks for the honest critique. It really helps me improve. :) I confess to linkbaiting a little with the title. Where we are now isn’t utterly broken, but the way we think about programming can always improve, and this is one direction I can envision improvement. Also, I wanted to tie it in to the article I was referencing. Performance is obviously important, but it’s a large topic and I didn’t have strong enough examples on hand to make the point I want to make. I’ll definitely go into more detail on that point in a future article. The gist is that high-level languages don’t need to sacrifice performance if they are constructed in such a way that the program contains enough meaning for the compiler to intelligently optimise it, a property which existing languages tend to lack. And if I may say so, I hope to prove you wrong too! ;)