home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
- Path: sparky!uunet!mercury.hsi.com!mlfarm!cs.arizona.edu!icon-group
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 11:54:17 MST
- From: "Gregg Townsend" <gmt@cs.arizona.edu>
- Message-ID: <199301231854.AA14607@owl.cs.arizona.edu>
- Subject: builtin Icon functions
- Lines: 31
-
- I am amused by postings that state "I never use X, so I suggest that X
- should be removed from the library". That's an awfully self-centered
- view. While I never use acos() or bal(), that doesn't mean that I think
- they should be deleted.
-
- A more defensible criterion is the one states "If it can be programmed
- in Icon, it belongs in the IPL instead of being a builtin function".
- At least that one is unbiased. Of course, that would mean we'd lose
- useful functions like tab(), right(), and trim() -- and just think
- about the performance of a map() function written in Icon!
-
- My own opinion is that a large repertoire of preprogrammed operations
- greatly increases the utility of a language, whether these are supplied
- as operators or builtin functions. Certainly FORTRAN would not have
- succeeded without its math library. Accordingly, I support the inclusion
- of tab(), bal(), sin(), detab(), and other functions, and would like to
- see more.
-
- The IPL just isn't the same although it is indeed very useful and
- underappreciated. Usage is more difficult because one must set up the
- programming environment to find the files, add link directives to the
- Icon programs, and perhaps deal with version conflicts.
-
- The argument is made that all these functions make Icon harder to learn.
- There is some truth to that, especially when they're all thrown together
- in one large bag with no indication of where a new student should start;
- but that's a presentation problem, not a language problem.
-
- Gregg Townsend / Computer Science Dept / Univ of Arizona / Tucson, AZ 85721
- +1 602 621 4325 gmt@cs.arizona.edu 110 57 16 W / 32 13 45 N / +758m
-
-