Re: Mathematica daily WTF

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg115233] Re: Mathematica daily WTF*From*: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>*Date*: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:50:23 -0500 (EST)

I totally agree that functional programming is easier to write, understand, and reuse. I was only saying that either style can be done well, or done badly. Bobby On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 03:23:52 -0600, Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 1/3/11 at 9:11 AM, btreat1 at austin.rr.com (DrMajorBob) wrote: > >> Procedural code can be written particularly badly... and so can >> functional code. > >> For elegance, efficiency, and readability, both depend on a good >> programmer's consistent style. > >> Functional code, in addition, needs good names for its functions. > > Certainly, this is all true. But even with well written code, I > find functional code easier to understand than procedural code. > > If I write f[x], it is immediately apparent the result is a > function f with argument x regardless of what function f is. If > I write the procedural equivalent it is often far less obvious > as to what is being done particularly if the procedural > equivalent involves nested For loops. > > In another post in this thread Andrzej described functional code > as being like a box with an input and output and procedural code > as being something corresponds much closer to what the computer > actually does. To me, this is the essence of the difference in > understanding both styles (assuming well written code). > > With functional code, it is easier to see the "big picture" of > what is happening while the details are often obscured. With > procedural code, the details are much more apparent but it takes > something more to get the "big picture". To me, understanding > the purpose of code means getting the "big picture" and is not > in the details. > > -- DrMajorBob at yahoo.com