[fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
JeLlyFish.software at gmx.net
Thu Jun 2 17:05:45 CEST 2005
On Thursday 02 June 2005 14:44, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> My point is to to reduce or remove *redundant* syntax that serves no
> useful or productive purpose (to the programmer).
Well applied redundancy is a good thing.
> Forward declarations are redundant - they exist purely for the
> benefit of the compiler.
> Begin..End is redundant - you have to indent them to make em readable
No. This makes the code more readable like normal english text. It
states much more clearly what it intents, at least much more than just
indenting or putting curly braces around it.
> manual memory management of tobjects is redundant as you can get good
> performance with ref counting tobjects.
That can be a point, yes. But it is somehow not related to any syntax.
> All in all the changes would mean you spend more of your time
> implementing your application rather than typing loads of redundant
Typing is only a very small part of the development cycle. Performance
measures indicate that rhe average programmer delivers about 2 to 20
lines per code per day (measured over the whole development cycles,
this of course includes testing, too).
Compare these with the lines of code you *could* write in eight hours if
you would just write them and you see how much you could optimize away
there if you'd actually manage to double the performance.
> Maintenance is easier as their is less redundancy.
It simply depends on the kind of redundancy.
For instance, "type" and "var" keywords are just redundant, the compiler
could figure it out by itself, still they serve a useful purpose.
public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc
More information about the fpc-devel