Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Algorithms on Wikipedia/More talk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Algorithms on Wikipedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XJaM (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 28 February 2002 (C wise programming.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A couple of points:

  • OOP is about programming in the large. For programming in the small (to provide illustrative examples of algorithms, for instance), OOP is just a bunch of unnecessary cruft. Hence, Java and C++ don't add very much over C for the purpose of illustrating fundamental algorithms, and the cruft gets in the way of understanding.
  • Some of the HLL's (Perl, for instance), aren't exactly ideal for describing implementations of data structures (trees, hash tables etc).
  • As far as the untestability of pseudocode, most algorithms we present should be verifiable by inspection.
  • Perl looks ugly and encourages, er, idiosyncratic coding. It's great for getting jobs done. It's bad for presenting examples in, IMHO.
  • Of course, I think we should present most of our algorithms in something like Haskell, but I can't see us winning that argument :) --Robert Merkel
Yeah Robert I agree at most. Especially for C as I don't understand all the HLL's, PERL's, IMHO's, Haskell 98's, Haskell++, O'Haskell's and Mondrian's stuff you've written. C++ and Java are very active nowadays and perhaps according to C++, through C# and some other futher classification efforts C will see its own rebirth. I am also very much interested in RPN programming and in Maple V R4.00a codeing for the number theory applications. --XJamC 4 Wednesday (Thor's day) [2002.02.28) (0)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Algorithms_on_Wikipedia/More_talk&oldid=210938873"