3 ms·
Thanks for this. I'm relieved to know I'm not thinking the "wrong" way. :) But, honestly, I could not articulate the problem as you have. I wish I had your
by gwu78 13y ago
Thanks for this. I'm relieved to know I'm not thinking the "wrong" way. :)
But, honestly, I could not articulate the problem as you have. I wish I had your knowledge. The idea of a "jump" really captures it. setjmp. goto. It's navigating memory. And nothing more.
I can visualize the problem, sort of - I just intuitively feel like sets, Lisp-like lists, and vector-based approaches, are the way to go in high level programming - but I do not know the right words to describe and argue my point.
As such, I doubt I could convince many high level programmers to abandon the use of iterations in the code they write.
Again, you have beautifully articulated what I could not. Cheers.
- jacques_chester 13y agoI did a little assembler in a course at university. When you write instructions that tell a CPU where to go next, it all becomes fairly visible. Even C blurs the model (which itself is a lie these days, but no matter). It didn't matter so much when C was created, because early C programmers were also assembler programmers. These days that's no longer true.