[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PUSH / human factors / consistency principles
- To: Flowers at YALE
- Subject: Re: PUSH / human factors / consistency principles
- From: John R. Ellis <Ellis at YALE>
- Date: Wed ,20 May 82 16:44:00 EDT
- Cc: T-Discussion at YALE
- In-reply-to: Flowers's message of 20-May-82 4:04PM-EDT (Thu)
The arguments about visual order reflecting internal lisp structure
are stronger arguments (as compared to English-usage arguments).
...I find this a much stronger principle than the object-oriented
principle that, to the best of my introspection, has never participated
in my use of LISP, and which I don't find terribly relevant (maybe
because I try to avoid side-effect programming as much as possible).
The object methodology and side-effect programming are orthogonal concepts.
Traditonal Lisps and Lisp programs, like other programming languages,
generally don't use any kind of object-methodology at all, and they suffer
because of it. This contributes to their baroqueness. T is not a
traditional Lisp by any of the imagination.
Another /minor\ rule of thumb I use in determining argument order
is to try to put the "simpler" or "smaller" arguments first.
This was Kent Pitman's argument for why it should be (PUSH STACK VALUE).