Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 11:03:35 -0700
Reply-To: jfh@stanfordalumni.org
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Jack Hamilton <jfh@STANFORDALUMNI.ORG>
Subject: Re: Alternative for "goto" in do loop
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimpULTCJaZlUGMc__WEBVqqeSBMulybPplifj20@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Shaw: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and
island are the laws of nature.
On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:20 -0400, "Joe Whitehurst"
<joewhitehurst@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, this is precisely my point. The word "intuitive" is
bandied about as though it were an attribute of something be
it a software interface, programming code or a remote control
for some electronic equipment or some other piece of machinery
to be used by humans without regard for who those humans might
be nor what their prior experiences might have been nor what
the context or circumstances of their encounter with the thing
being described as "intuitive" or not might be.
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Jack Hamilton
<[1]jfh@alumni.stanford.org> wrote:
"Intuitive" is one of those words that has both a general
meaning and several domain-specific meanings. And since it is
not always clear, even in context, which of those meanings is
intended, "intuitive" may not be the best word to use.
I suspect that the intended meaning in software is something
like the "principle of least surprise" - the behavior is
whatever surprises an experienced user of the language (or
interface) the least.
See:
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen
t
[3]http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Principle:of:least:astonish
ment.html
The creator of Ruby had an interesting comment:
Everyone has an individual background. Someone may come
from Python, someone else may come from Perl, and they
may be surprised by different aspects of the language.
Then they come up to me and say, 'I was surprised by
this feature of the language, so Ruby violates the
principle of least surprise.' Wait. Wait. The principle
of least surprise is not for you only. The principle of
least surprise means principle of least *my* surprise.
And it means the principle of least surprise after you
learn Ruby very well. For example, I was a C++
programmer before I started designing Ruby. I programmed
in C++ exclusively for two or three years. And after
two years of C++ programming, it still surprises me.
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_(programming_language)
Joe Whitehurst wrote:
Sid,
I did not experience any irritation whatsoever at your use of
the word
"intuitive", and I applaud your efforts to understand SAS
code. Keep up
your efforts. I think you will find your efforts will pay
off. I apologize
if my statements make you experience any unease at all. I
have an entirely
different agenda and my attention to your use of "intuitive"
was merely a
pretext to help me pose the questions I did. So, let me
withdraw my
questions to you. I still hope that others in SAS-L-Dom will
offers some
answers to the two questions I posed to you.
Joe
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Sid N <[5]nsid31@gmail.com>
wrote:
Joe,
First, I did not intend to irritate any one when I said that
the
alternative
code suggested to my question in using the GOTO loops was more
intuitive.
What I meant to say was that my understanding of the
(original) code was
not
spontaneous when I first came across that sequence of GOTO
statements. As
Arthur put it, the code did not provide the "quick insight."
Does it make
it
an attribute of the code? I don’t actually know. When I looked
at some of
the other code submitted by SAS-Lers, I could make out
immediately what the
code is aiming for, and I could at least think of what the
output would be
like. This has more to do with the limited data step coding
experience, and
more familiarity with some of the SAS functions that I have
had in the
past.
I am not a native English speaker. Therefore, I am not
completely sure if
"intuitive" is the right word to mean what I described above.
May be the
usage of the word was just superfluous. However, I did not
quite understand
your persistence in knowing what I actually meant when I used
the term
"intuitive." I am interested in knowing why it is annoying
when someone
uses
the word “intuitive”? When is it actually acceptable to use
that word?
Couldn’t a block of code be termed intuitive in nature?
Sid
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Joe Whitehurst
<[6]joewhitehurst@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear SAS-Lers,
Sid N has not answered the questions I put to him regarding
his use of
the
pesky adjective "intuitive" and one of the finest minds in all
of
SAS-L-Dum
admits he has "nothing
interesting or intelligent to say on the subject". Yet, we
all see this
pesky adjective applied not only in marketing super-hype but
in many
serious
discussions about software including coding practices within
the SAS
System.
Can and will any SAS-Lers venture answers to the two simple
questions I
put
to Sid N? The whole nation (in Colbert's terms) is awaiting
the answers.
Joe
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Joe Whitehurst <
[7]joewhitehurst@gmail.com>wrote:
Sid,
Your use of the word "intuitive" prompts me to ask: "Just
specifically
what do you mean by intuitive"? Are you asserting that
"intuitive" is
an
attribute of the code?
Joe Whitehurst
Personal Construct Psychologist
To learn more about this 21st century psychological science
click any of
the following links:
By George Kelly Himself:
A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Psychology<
[8]http://70.88.183.165/A%20Brief%20Introduction%20to%20PCP.pd
f>
Ontological Acceleration<
[9]http://70.88.183.165/Ontological_Acceleration.pdf> (superb
ideas, marginal quality media)
By others:
Introduction to PCP
<[10]http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~gaines/pcp/>
Constructivist Psychology Network
<[11]http://www.constructivistpsych.org/>
Cognitive Mapping Tools<
[12]http://www.coachingnetwork.org.uk/ResourceCentre/ProductsA
ndServices/RepGrid.htm
BUDDHIST MEDITATION AND PERSONAL CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY<
[13]http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/Pilou.html>
THE INTERNET ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PERSONAL CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY<
[14]http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/main.html>
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Sid N <[15]nsid31@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have never thought such an innocuous post (as the original)
would
elicit
so much discussion. Thank you everyone for sharing his/her
inputs.
That's
what I like the most about SAS-L -- not just answering the
question,
but
also providing some amazing perspective and background. So
much here to
learn!
Personally, I have not felt comfortable working with the
original code
with
that sequence of GOTO statements. I have tried other
alternatives
suggested
in this thread; they are easily understandable and much more
intuitive.
Sid
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:24 AM, toby dunn
<[16]tobydunn@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Ahhh well we will have to agree to disagree on this. I am a
stright
up
GOTO hater. Can't help myself I guess, I beleive that if you
have to
write
a GOTO statement (other than in extreme rare circumstances),
you need
to go
back and redesign your code. There is almost always a better
approach
than
to use a GOTO. Thats just my opinion on the subject so take
it for
what
ever it is worth.
Reminds me of Macro Arrays. Yeah we should teach people about
them,
so
that when they come across them they can rewrite the suckers
in to
either
Macro list processing or one of couple oter methods that are
easier
and
more
efficient.
Toby Dunn
"Don't bail. The best gold is at the bottom of barrels of
crap."
Randy Pausch
"Be prepared. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."
Randy Pausch
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 00:59:24 -0400
From: [17]s.lassen@POST.TELE.DK
Subject: Re: Alternative for "goto" in do loop
To: [18]SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Toby,
In terms of pure efficiency, gotos are sometimes needed, as
long as
SAS
does not have a statement to leave an outer loop. (could
possibly
be
implemented as "leave <n>" where n is the number of levels you
want
to
escape, 1 being the default).
Even when efficiency is not paramount, I think gotos sometimes
make programs easier to write, read and maintain.
Regards,
Søren
On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:11:10 +0000, toby dunn <
[19]tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM>
wrote:
Søren,
Yes in general GOTO's are never needed. Proper loop
construction,
haveing
no more than 3 levels of nesting, using proper branching, and
in
SAS
coding
the proper exit condtion at the beggining of the loop. SAS
does
have
Leave
and Continue statements. These aren't bad so long as the level
of
nesting
and Looping is relatively simple. Th more omplex the Do-Loop
the
less
one
wants to use these as they just add unneeded code complexity.
Toby Dunn
"Don't bail. The best gold is at the bottom of barrels of
crap."
Randy Pausch
"Be prepared. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity."
Randy Pausch
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:05:57 -0400
From: [20]s.lassen@POST.TELE.DK
Subject: Re: Alternative for "goto" in do loop
To: [21]SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Perusing Knuths execellent paper
[22]http://pplab.snu.ac.kr/courses/adv_pl05/papers/p261-knuth.
pdf
(Thank you, Michael!), I stumbled upon this little gem:
"Of course, event indicators are not the only decent
alternatives
to
go
to
statements that have been proposed. Many authors have
suggested
language
features which provide roughly equivalent facilities, but
which
are
expressed in terms of exit, jumpout, break, or leave
statements.
Kosaraju
[57] has proved that such statements are sufficient to express
all
programs
without go to's and without any extra computation, but only if
an
exit
from
arbitrarily many levels of control is permitted."
Which seems to vindicate my personal GOTO policy quite
adequately,
namely
that GOTOs can be used instead of LEAVE when you need to break
out
of
several
levels of nested loops, and (in SAS) STOP or DELETE(/RETURN)
is
too
drastic.
Thanks to you all for an entertaining and enlightening
discussion!
Søren
______________________________________________________________
___
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get
more
from
your
inbox.
[23]http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?
ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
______________________________________________________________
___
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get
more from
your
inbox.
[24]http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID283
26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
References
1. mailto:jfh@alumni.stanford.org
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
3. http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Principle:of:least:astonishment.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_(programming_language)
5. mailto:nsid31@gmail.com
6. mailto:joewhitehurst@gmail.com
7. mailto:joewhitehurst@gmail.com
8. http://70.88.183.165/A%20Brief%20Introduction%20to%20PCP.pdf
9. http://70.88.183.165/Ontological_Acceleration.pdf
10. http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~gaines/pcp/
11. http://www.constructivistpsych.org/
12.
http://www.coachingnetwork.org.uk/ResourceCentre/ProductsAndServices/RepGrid.htm
13. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/Pilou.html
14. http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/main.html
15. mailto:nsid31@gmail.com
16. mailto:tobydunn@hotmail.com
17. mailto:s.lassen@POST.TELE.DK
18. mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
19. mailto:tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM
20. mailto:s.lassen@POST.TELE.DK
21. mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
22. http://pplab.snu.ac.kr/courses/adv_pl05/papers/p261-knuth.pdf
23. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy
24.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
--
Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
Jack Hamilton
Sacramento, California
jfh@alumni.stanford.org
