>language has imperative loops but doesn't have for-loops

ok

>>55101459
thanks for the tweet m8. Some of your 12 followers totally agree with you. One has even retweeted it!

File: 1423615670070.jpg (116KB, 693x693px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 693x693px

>>55101459
>New edition MTG

>>55101459
>language has "for loops" where you don't explicitly manage the test and index

>language doesn't have imperative loops at all

>>55101459
>language has loops instead of TCO and hygienic macros

>>55101459
What language is that?

>>55101459
>language doesn't have tuples and functions can't return multiple values
>language doesn't have even the most rudimentary pattern matching

>>55103639
Ruby and Python

>>55104111

But that's wrong:

# Ruby

for x in (0..100)
  puts x
end

0.upto(100) do | i |
    sum += some_array[i]
end
[/coder]


It's just an extremely ugly way of iterating.

Think about what an iteration does:

Are you just reapeating something 100 times? Or do you need each element of a collection? 

Then why using an artificial variable for it?

>>55104877

Well, fug.
Let's try it again:

[code}
# Ruby

for x in (0..100)
puts x
end

0.upto(100) do | i |
sum += some_array[i]
end
[/code]


It's just an extremely ugly way of iterating.

Think about what an iteration does:

Are you just reapeating something 100 times? Or do you need each element of a collection?

Then why using an artificial variable for it?

>>55104979

Kill me please..

>>55104877
>>55104979
>>55104985
made me chuckle