[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lua-l
Subject:    Re: Sparse tables (was: Virgin tables)
From:       Henning Diedrich <hd2010 () eonblast ! com>
Date:       2010-12-30 16:56:24
Message-ID: 4D1CB9B8.7040009 () eonblast ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12/30/10 4:40 PM, Lorenzo Donati wrote:
> maybe the problem ... is that most people seem to see Lua tables as an 
> high level data structure 

I think that's an encouraged view.

That you can benefit so much from understanding the deeper level, 
combined with the elegance of the upper, is the shockingly great thing 
about Lua to me. An eye opener I think. But it works because both levels 
are that elegant.

Now the table is so intelligently designed underneath that the core 
principle that things make sense on both levels is violated by #. Maybe 
beyond a certain smartness that can't be avoided.

I know I will acquaint people with Lua and it will cost time and nerves 
and people will make that mistake. Or, worse, break code that otherwise 
ran using #, by inadvertently poking holes in tables, breaking #.

So throwing an error, even if people will complain about that one, too, 
and have a hard time to understand it, or protest it (e.g. for t[3]=3, 
t[2]=2, t[1]=1) would still be seconded. Even in the face of an 
unfortunate but minor performance loss. That's the toughest thing in my 
view.

Mind you, even if you got it a long time ago, if you ever lead a Lua 
project, the thing may still bite you badly, because somebody else in 
your team is falling in that trap. Even if you warned them. Or worse, 
two people messing each others' stuff up by it.

On 12/30/10 4:53 PM, Lorenzo Donati wrote:
> And as for the names: virgin, holes, etc., well the adjective 
> 'inappropriate' is an euphemism.
>
> I know several female colleagues of mine who would rightfully beat 
> with a stick whoever forced them to use such idioms, even in a 
> programming environment.
>

Also for the religous, |holy == not virgin| won't do, so let's drop it 
already.

I would like to talk about [0] now.

Just kidding.
Henning

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000066">
    On 12/30/10 4:40 PM, Lorenzo Donati wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:4D1CA7EB.1050000@interfree.it" type="cite">maybe
      the problem ... is that most people seem to see Lua tables as an
      high level data structure </blockquote>
    <br>
    I think that's an encouraged view.<br>
    <br>
    That you can benefit so much from understanding the deeper level,
    combined with the elegance of the upper, is the shockingly great
    thing about Lua to me. An eye opener I think. But it works because
    both levels are that elegant.<br>
    <br>
    Now the table is so intelligently designed underneath that the core
    principle that things make sense on both levels is violated by #.
    Maybe beyond a certain smartness that can't be avoided. <br>
    <br>
    I know I will acquaint people with Lua and it will cost time and
    nerves and people will make that mistake. Or, worse, break code that
    otherwise ran using #, by inadvertently poking holes in tables,
    breaking #. <br>
    <br>
    So throwing an error, even if people will complain about that one,
    too, and have a hard time to understand it, or protest it (e.g. for
    t[3]=3, t[2]=2, t[1]=1) would still be seconded. Even in the face of
    an unfortunate but minor performance loss. That's the toughest thing
    in my view.<br>
    <br>
    Mind you, even if you got it a long time ago, if you ever lead a Lua
    project, the thing may still bite you badly, because somebody else
    in your team is falling in that trap. Even if you warned them. Or
    worse, two people messing each others' stuff up by it. <br>
    <br>
    On 12/30/10 4:53 PM, Lorenzo Donati wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:4D1CAAF8.2040500@interfree.it" type="cite">And
      as for the names: virgin, holes, etc., well the adjective
      'inappropriate' is an euphemism.
      <br>
      <br>
      I know several female colleagues of mine who would rightfully beat
      with a stick whoever forced them to use such idioms, even in a
      programming environment.
      <br>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Also for the religous, |holy == not virgin| won't do, so let's drop
    it already.<br>
    <br>
    I would like to talk about [0] now. <br>
    <br>
    Just kidding.<br>
    Henning<br>
  </body>
</html>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic