Re: [Funge] question + a new weird thing..

[vsync <vs...@bi...>]

"Joshua J. Belsky" <jjb...@uc...> writes:

> Gregory:
> 
> The subroutine is not an issue of power, it is an issue of structure. And
> structured code is not what Funge is all about.  In fact, structured code is
> exactly what Funge is not about.
> 
> The addition of subroutines would make readable and easy-to-write Funge
> programming a possibility. And we don't want that. It defeats the whole
> purpose.

I have to say I agree with this.  While I think the Funge-98 spec was
a Good Thing in some ways (threads etc), I was almost a little
disappointed with the number of new opcodes.  It seemed like it was
heading a little too far toward trying to become a concise, sensical
language.

The elegance of Funge is its convolutedness.  I have to say that I
think Funge programming has forced me to think about programming on a
slightly higher level, simply because of how painful it can be to
program in.  =)

> When considering a feature to add to the Funge specification, utility should
> not be a consideration. In other high level languages (Is Funge high level?
> Well, I guess so.) features are added for utilitarian purposes, that is, to
> make programming more streamlined and easier to read and write. In my mind,
> there are only two justifications for adding a feature to the Funge spec:
> 
> 1) The feature allows Funge to do something that is impossible to do under
> the current specification.
> 2) The feature allows Funge code to be more efficient on a functionality to
> number-of-characters ratio.
> 

Hear, hear.  (Here, here?  Hear, here?  Whatever.)

-- 
vsync
Beware.