4 ms·

>Firstly, how one abstraction can implicitly be a 'better abstraction' than another I am not sure. Only perhaps because you (individually) understand it better

>Firstly, how one abstraction can implicitly be a 'better abstraction' than another I am not sure. Only perhaps because you (individually) understand it better or have used it before it is more useful to you. That was clumsy of me. I meant to say that it was a better abstraction for teaching iterative programming, which is a good tool for getting people productive with a minimum of training. > Secondly, how is 'each' any less 'plain iterative' than 'for...' when they both do exactly the same thing (iterate)? Also, how is it more 'functional'? To me its more object-oriented in that the object is stated first, but this isn't to say it is less plain or more abstract. When we're talking rich objects instead of simple iterators, we are speaking more abstractly. Now, naturally, you're always using a rich object in a language like Ruby, but it's a lot easier to gloss over that with for. >I agree that Assembly is good to learn, but not sure what you mean by calling it 'iterative'. It's full of side effects, you're not working with clean encapsulated objects. > Secondly, how is 'each' any less 'plain iterative' than 'for...' when they both do exactly the same thing (iterate)? Also, how is it more 'functional'? To me its more object-oriented in that the object is stated first, but this isn't to say it is less plain or more abstract. More object oriented == more abstract. But that's basically a semantic game and kind of beside the point, which is that there are more principles of computer science lurking in each than in for. That's great if you're teaching computer science, not so much if you're teaching computer programming.

twelvechairs 14y ago
Yeah. But isn't the whole point of high level constructs that you can use and conceptualize them more easily than, and without prior understanding of, what happens at a lower-level? Just like you don't have to learn exactly how CPU registers work to learn C, you also don't have to learn all the principles of computer science behind 'each' before you can use it.... also - maybe you mean 'imperative' rather than 'iterative'? In terms of 'abstract', I can see where you are coming from that there are more underlying principles and its more abstract from this point of view. From the point of view I was at, they are both referencing the same variables doing the same thing so its the same abstraction from a programmatic(?) point of view. Probably a poor/confusing choice of words on my part...

twelvechairs 14y ago

Yeah. But isn't the whole point of high level constructs that you can use and conceptualize them more easily than, and without prior understanding of, what happens at a lower-level? Just like you don't have to learn exactly how CPU registers work to learn C, you also don't have to learn all the principles of computer science behind 'each' before you can use it.... also - maybe you mean 'imperative' rather than 'iterative'? In terms of 'abstract', I can see where you are coming from that there are more underlying principles and its more abstract from this point of view. From the point of view I was at, they are both referencing the same variables doing the same thing so its the same abstraction from a programmatic(?) point of view. Probably a poor/confusing choice of words on my part...