shoeboxes, pencils, and strips of paper
I am frustrated because I don't see any way in living hell how compiler implementation has any fricken thing to do with this here, yet you make a big fricken insultive deal about it. It is like talking to the meter maid about differences between two watches and ticket times, and then she suddenly starts to mutter about how the car engine works.
I am *not* talking about machine efficiency here. I am talking about how it makes the life of the *developer* easier and simpler.
Building everything with a dictionary-like class hinders the *developer* because it forces them to funnel everything in their through the concept these "dictionaries". Whether the code is executed through a compiler or a person behind a black curtain using pencils, strips of paper, and shoe-boxes to execute it is moot.
Does your (weird vague) argument still hold if we assume that a person behind a black curtain using pencils, strips of paper, and shoe-boxes executes it?
I doubt it.
You OO'ers just think so weird upstairs. I cannot figure out your odd little minds. It is an intellectual culture clash worse than Middle East fights. Bizzaaar. Yet at the same time it is fascinating, like trying to figure out how aliens think. But the aliens piss in my face when I ask questions.
With some effort and research, I can probably implement a recursive algorithm without recursion.
I have done it using tables. You mark the nodes already visited and process those that are not. You can manage the ordering by sorting by path length and a few other things.
Go learn about how compilers work. Then we will have much better common ground to talk from.
You have not given any evidence that a specific implementation of a compiler is important (beyond performance issues). Whether it is Yacc, gerbals, or pencils and shoeboxes that executes the code is not a concern *at all* to the developers and designers, as long as those all follow the spec. I have no idea why you are bring it up. My schema was meant to be conceptual, not an interpreter design.
12. Two other respondants in this thread began citing basic compiler techniques.
It was a side topic about Smalltalk.
WRT your URL example, I have no idea what you mean by "return-to type". I would probably have to see a little code sample. You know what a fan I am of "type" taxonomies.
7. You replied to just the postscript. 8. I flamed back. In the Flame Forum, because I wanted to get personal.
What "back"? You are admitting that you got personal *first*, accusing me of "deliberately" doing some kind of evil textual act.
