• xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you’re operating on such a low level of abstraction, it’s no wonder you don’t need deep nesting.

    • IRQBreaker@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I’ve done my fair share of C++ and Python as well. But you got to agree with me that when you are on your fourth indented “if case” it’s time to step back and think about what you are trying to achieve. I mean it’s probably going to work, but probably also very hard to maintain that type of code.

      • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How would you implement, for example, Gaussian elimination with at most 3 levels of nesting?

            • JesperZ@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There a many ways to implement abstractions, but it’s highly dependent on the language in question. You could simply refactor each level of nesting into its own function, with all dependents provided as parameters instead of scoped variables. You could then flatMap to avoid a bunch of nested looping, favoring a linear approach that’s often easier to reason about. You could go all out and refactor all your conditional statements away, in favor of the Either monad. You’d then have a number of functions, each doing one thing (including no nesting), and a main function gluing it all together, linearly. That is a pattern you can always apply; there’s nothing controversial about it, and on a similar note there’s nothing particularly challenging about Gaussian elimination.