I think the author of this haskell code chose to write short and fast code when speed, readability, conciseness in that order perhaps would have been a more apropriate set of priorities in the context of the cited article.
After all, the computational costs of additional comments and descriptive name are astonishingly low in most programming languages.
On the bright side, the code is considerably fast (it takes 2 secs on a 1.3 GHz pb with ghc-6.4 -O) and could easily be made readable.
So please don't settle your opinion on fp because of this - there's a lot of beautiful functional code out there worth being explored.
Well actually people aready do construct mesh networks in the "real world". And they do that even without exhausting another letter from the precious 802.11 namespace. For example, the freifunk.net initiative is playing around on a larger scale with the OLSR Ad-Hoc-Mesh-Networking-Protocol in Berlin.
Slashdot Mirror
No, IMHO its just bad style.
I think the author of this haskell code chose to write short and fast code when speed, readability, conciseness in that order perhaps would have been a more apropriate set of priorities in the context of the cited article.
After all, the computational costs of additional comments and descriptive name are astonishingly low in most programming languages.
On the bright side, the code is considerably fast (it takes 2 secs on a 1.3 GHz pb with ghc-6.4 -O) and could easily be made readable.
So please don't settle your opinion on fp because of this - there's a lot of beautiful functional code out there worth being explored.
Well actually people aready do construct mesh networks in the "real world". And they do that even without exhausting another letter from the precious 802.11 namespace. For example, the freifunk.net initiative is playing around on a larger scale with the OLSR Ad-Hoc-Mesh-Networking-Protocol in Berlin.