From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,243dc2fb696a49cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail
Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Popularity: Comparison of Ada/Charles with C++ STL (and Perl)
References: <e749549b.0409211621.6f3d3723@posting.google.com>
 <338040f8.0409230912.70e3375b@posting.google.com> <u6564dfge.fsf@obry.org>
 <m2brfwpz4a.fsf@mac.scrogneugneu.org> <m23c18pt9u.fsf@mac.scrogneugneu.org>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 26 Sep 2004 13:02:01 -0400
Message-ID: <m3sm9555h2.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 
 DXC==NLd5J<ij7\2S]d;N5a\l]0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZTmMhfhH<Ki\^aM2i8keRm]gYK`n>m?G7^
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4219
Date: 2004-09-26T13:02:01-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Eric Jacoboni <jaco@neottia.net> writes:

> Eric Jacoboni <jaco@neottia.net> writes:
>
> > What about Ruby ? Much more readable than perl/python, imho. Its
> > inventor claims to be inspired by Ada and Eiffel syntaxes.

Actually, Ruby is closer to Lisp than either of those.


> Ok, i've finally found the equivalent of while (<>) construct in Ruby,
> so the initialisation of the hash is now more concise. By using 'for'
> instead of iterators, the code is more Ada-ish :
>
> for a_file in ARGF do
>   for a_line in a_file do
>     for a_word in a_line.split(/[^A-Za-z]+/) do
>         count[a_word.downcase] += 1
>     end # for a_word
>   end # for a_line
> end # for a_file

(defun word-count-2 (file-spec &key (wordpat (compile-pattern "[A-Za-z]+")))
  (let ((count (make-hash-table :test #'equal)))
    (with-open-file (the-file file-spec :direction :input)
      (for-each line :in the-file
        (for-each word :in (split-string wordpat line)
          (incf (gethash (string-downcase word) count 0)))))
    (let ((topten (subseq (sort (all (w c) :in count) #'> :key 'second) 0 10)))
      (for-each pair :in topten (print pair)))))

Just curious, do people who had "trouble" with the first version find
this one as "clear" as the Ruby?  Note: the part that is the same as
the above Ruby is just:

(with-open-file (the-file file-spec :direction :input)
  (for-each line :in the-file
    (for-each word :in (split-string wordpat line)
      (incf (gethash (string-downcase word) count 0)))))


/Jon

--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com