Category:Phix: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 28:
Phix applies the principle of least surprise, for instance in some languages <tt>myproc(list)</tt> or <tt>res = myfunc(list)</tt> can mangle list, whereas in Phix if you actually want that to happen you would code <tt>list = myproc(list)</tt> (and myproc would need to become a function) or <tt>{res,list} = myfunc(list)</tt>. Likewise 1/2 is 0.5 (not 0, unless you explicitly ask for the floor()) and 0-1 is -1 (not +MAXINT). A core tenet is that for any line of code there is one and only one possible interpretation of it, and said meaning is utterly intuitive.
Phix is not inherently object orientated, but achieves many of the claimed benefits, yet in a much simpler way. In fact I have been looking for <i><b>proof</b></i> that object orientation actually improves productivity compared to other paradigms for decades, and never found it. Not to say that I won't support it, but I certainly won't enforce it. One other thing I have never found is a "good object orientated design", and reached the conclusion that mythical creature simply does not exist, at least not as a separate entity as opposed to some ethereal quality of the finished code. Feel free to argue that one on [[User_talk:Petelomax]]. Phix offers perfectly decent encapsulation at the file level, proving that is not the sole purview of oo, implements polymorphism far more elegantly than C-based languages and far safer than duck-typed languages, and as for the third pillar of oop, inheritance, well isn't the current mantra "favour composition over inheritance"?
The principle goal of Phix is to make debugging easier, a whole subject area that does not seem to get the attention it deserves. Not entirely sure I am succeeding, yet.▼
▲The
==See also==
| |||