Re:All my methods take 316 arguments, and I like it that way
by jrockway on Wednesday December 30, 2009 @01:43PM
(#1022928)
How do you know that "+" doesn't depend on pi? Oh. Now you see the problem.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:All my methods take 316 arguments, and I like it that way
by EricBurnett on Wednesday December 30, 2009 @04:36PM
(#1023273)
If you need 100% guarantees, then yes, do things in a purely functional way. However, I think the point is that in any sane program you can easily and safely make the assumption that + does not depend on pi in this situation.
Yes, anything _can_ depend on any and all globals, but with proper practices, documentation, code reviews and what have you, one can make simplifying assumptions on what _will_ happen.
Re:All my methods take 316 arguments, and I like it that way
by jimbokun on Wednesday December 30, 2009 @07:13PM
(#1023548)
"...but with proper practices, documentation, code reviews and what have you, one can make simplifying assumptions on what _will_ happen."
Or you can leave out the practices, documentation, and code reviews and use a functional language and get the same result. Yes, those things are useful for other reasons, but the current argument is about avoiding the inherent dangers of global variables.