[OpenSCAD] feedback on "C-style for"

arnholm at arnholm.org arnholm at arnholm.org
Thu Jun 2 07:50:36 EDT 2016

On 2016-06-02 06:04, Jamie_K wrote:
> I won't argue about whether functional or imperative is "better" or 
> more
> elegant, but I will argue that pure functional thinking is much more
> /specialized/ than sequential style thinking.  I have heard it said 
> that
> functional programming is more like mathematics and less like 
> programming,
> and I would agree.  Yet I still believe that this mathematical style of
> thinking is less common and less accessible to non-specialists, 
> beginner or
> not!

Agreed. This is common sense.

I don't understand how the argument for a "functional" language follows 
from the objective of ease of use for beginners, except for trivial code 
which is really equally trivial in any language, "functional" or not.

> Anybody can bang out a bit of procedural code, but not everyone can
> wrap their heads around closures, continuations, tail-recursion, or 
> monads.

This is true, it can defeat the noble objective of OpenSCAD being 
accessible to non-specialists.

About a year ago on this list, I stated that I thought the focus of 
OpenSCAD was too much on language definition compared to other 
functionality, and that this follows from the fact that OpenSCAD defines 
it own language syntax. To me, it seems this is still the case.

Carsten Arnholm

More information about the Discuss mailing list