Mike Meyer mwm at mired.org
Mon Oct 8 12:30:46 CEST 2012

```On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:47:32 +0000
"Costello, Roger L." <costello at mitre.org> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> "Programs that avoid case analyses are clearer and simpler than those that use case analyses."

I'm not convinced. Here's the critical bits:

> Let's take a less trivial example. We will implement the floor function. Although Haskell already has a built-in floor function, it will be instructive to see how floor :: Float -> Integer can be programmed. The program will be developed in a systematic manner, starting with a specification for floor.
>
> After implementing  floor without case analyses, we will then compare it against an implementation that uses cases analyses.

A nice straw man implementation.

> It is tempting to plunge immediately into a case analysis, considering what to do if x is positive, what to do if x is negative, and, possibly, what to do if it is zero.

Right, this is the natural way to do it with case analysis.

> Add the definitions for decrease, upper, and lower:
>
> 	floor x  =  searchFrom 0
>                 where 	searchFrom  	=  decrease . upper . lower
>                             	lower              	=  until (<=x) decrease
>                           	upper               	=  until (>x) increase
>                           	decrease n  	=  n - 1
>                           	increase n  	=  n + 1
>
> Notice that this implementation of function floor does not use case analyses. The program is surprisingly short, owing mainly to the absence of a case analysis on the sign of x.
>
> Compare that with a version that uses case analyses:
>
> floor x 	| x < 0   	=  lower 0
>             	| x > 0   	=  (decrease . upper) 0
>             	| x == 0  	=  0
>                where  lower       	=  until (<=x) decrease
>                             upper       	=  until (>x) increase
>                             decrease n 	=  n - 1
>                             increase n 	=  n + 1
>[...]
> The case analysis version is longer and arguably more complex.

Let's see - you constructed a set of primitives specifically designed
to avoid case analysis, and when you use those to create a solution
that is only "arguably more complex". Would you let me get away with
arguing that an imperative solution was better if I forced you to use
imperative primitives in a functional version?

If you follow that original case analysis urge, you get this version:

floor x = truncate x - if x < 0 then 1 else 0

Clearly shorter and less complex than any either of your two
versions. Further, it actually, doesn't include any more case
analysis, as it has the same "if" that is hidden in the "until"
primitive in the version without case analysis.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>		http://www.mired.org/