Programming When Clarity Counts May 5th, 2009
Patrick Stein

In my previous post, I wrote some code in Perl because I wanted the code to be clear and obvious. Wait? What? Who uses Perl when they want clarity?

Perl

I admit: I was surprised myself. Seriously, I tried several other languages first. Let’s just focus on the first loop here. Here’s the Perl again for reference:

my $total = 0.0;
foreach my $item ( @list_of_items ) {
    $total += weight( $item );
}

Objective C

The actual code that I was attempting to explain was in Objective C with the NeXTStep foundation classes. I couldn’t imagine that anyone would want to try to understand it:

double total = 0.0;
NSEnumerator* ee = [itemList objectEnumerator];
Item* item;
while ( ( item = (Item*)[ee nextObject] ) != nil ) {
    total += [item weight];
}

C

My first attempt for the article was to write it in C using an array of items.

double total = 0.0;
unsigned int ii;
for ( ii = 0; ii < itemCount; ++ii ) {
    total += weight( itemArray[ ii ] );
}

That’s not too terrible. There is, however, a great deal of syntax and code devoted to handling the array including an extra variable to track its length. Beyond that, the loop counter is of little use to someone trying to understand the concept.

C++

My next go was C++. My hope was that iterators would make the looping less painful. C++ iterators, however, are the very model of pain.

double total = 0.0;
std::list< Item* >::const_iterator it;
for ( it = itemList.begin(); it != itemList.end(); ++it ) {
    total += weight( *it );
}

This requires the reader to wade through a syntactic thicket to get the iterator into the picture at all. It also requires a certain comfort with pointers that one wouldn’t have coming from another language.

Java

My next attempt was Java. I hate Java. It may not be terrible for this code with the new looping constructs that came in Java 1.5. Alas, I quit coding it before I made it through this first loop.

Lisp

Of course, I wanted to code this in Lisp:

(let ((total (reduce #'+ list-of-items :key #'weight)))
   ...)

That would be perfectly clear to someone who has used Lisp or Scheme. Alas, not everyone has.

So… Perl…

If you want to write the Perl code, you have to understand the difference between scalars and arrays. To read the code, however, you don’t have to grok that distinction to see what’s going on. I didn’t try it in Python. Maybe it would be clear to a wider audience. I may have to try it next time.

Sapir-Whorf with Programming Languages February 12th, 2009
Patrick Stein

I’ve been coding in Objective-C for a month or so now. It is interesting (in a Sapir-Whorf sort of way), how the language changes the way that I code. Switching from Objective-C to Lisp made me notice something that I hadn’t really noticed when moving from C++/Java/Perl to Lisp.

In Lisp, I will pull something out into a separate function if it makes the current function more self-contained, more one idea. In C++, I will only pull something out into a separate function if I need the same functionality in multiple places.

Actually, it’s even worse than that in C++. For stuff that is less than six or so lines, I might maintain it in several functions. Or, if I’m using some Literate Programming tool, I will just use the same chunk in multiple places. The notable exception in C++ is when I want to use something as a loop conditional, I may bother to break it out into its
own function:

while ( incrementCounter( cntr, min, max, dimensions ) ) {
    // body of loop here
}

In C++ or Objective-C, I might do something like this:

// some portion of my function

unsigned int choice = random() % length;
void* currentChoice = options[ choice ];
    // yes, I know I can memcpy(), but that's not as obvious
for ( unsigned int ii=choice+1; ii < length; ++ii ) {
    options[ ii-1 ] = options[ ii ];
}
--length;

// some code using currentChoice

In Lisp, I would never consider keeping that code inline. I would put it in another function right away.

This, this is one of the things I meant when I said Lisp is just plain fun. It’s easy to make a new function. I can just do it. I don’t have to fret too much over the name. I don’t have to fret too much over the argument
list. I don’t have to pre-declare it in this header file with the same signature as that implementation file. I
don’t have to pretend its a method when it’s really just a function. I can return multiple values if I need to do so. I don’t have to worry much about which compilation units will need to see this to compile.

Part of the maze generation code that I wrote in Objective-C needs to track walls. I don’t need the same structure during generation that I will use once it’s generated. So, I have a Wall class declared. It feels wrong to declare it right in the header file for the Maze. It feels silly to break it out into its own header file. What I should be doing is making a separate MazeFactory and have its implementation include the declaration of this Wall class. But, that is such overkill here. I just want the darn maze.

In Lisp, I would just be done with no feelings of guilt at all.

Updates In Email

Email:

RSS Feeds

l