A Thought On Leveraging

Question

Hey All-
I've worked in the software development industry for a number of years so I really appreciate the work that's gone into LR -- I love the idea that an app can be a "one-stop" process from beginning to end, and kudos to the LR team for giving us a layout where this is possible!
OK, the Kudos have been handed out, so now...work needs to be done! Many users/clients/people who have paid $300 attest to the fact that LR is miserably slow and prone to crashing when importing and rendering images that are ready to be developed. The testimony is that LR pales in comparison to both Adobe Bridge/ACR, Adobe Elements, and third-party apps that display and prepare our images for output.
LightRoom Is designed to do more, but let's not settle for a "do more" that's crippled in so many ways!
I think that LR needs to leverage more from Bridge so that images can be rendered more quickly and made more seamlessy available to PS. After all, this is a PS product!
Leveraging code is a good thing! LR uses the ACR "engine"...it needs the Bridge engine as well, so that there are not so many crashes when importing!!! --those of us with thousands of files to import are pleading!
And please -- give us more ".dot" upgrades to address these issues. Those of us who have paid good money for a "professional image management application" need to get full money's worth!

Answer 1

Well, java is pretty consistent in declaring ranges from an inclusive index to an exclusive index, so that could be expected here as well (which is how python does it too). There may be non-obvious aspects, but the original for loop has that too.
I remember when I just started programming, I had to write for-loops very carefully to make sure I was getting it right, because the second statement must be read as a while statement rather than an until statement, which is something that isn't explicit in the original syntax. The only reason it's second nature to me now, is that I've written it so often. That would happen far more quickly with the range syntax.
Also, I'm not necessarily arguing that the range syntax is less verbose (it really only is at the price of a static import), but that it is clearer. It reads closer to the intent of (most) for loops. Your first thought when you write a for loop is the range of numbers you want to iterate over, not the combination of two statements and a boolean that would cause a specific loop syntax to assign a specific variable the required values in succession. I'm fairly sure that for beginning programmers, the range syntax is less bug prone. The three expression for syntax only seems logical because we're so used to it.
(I realize the point is academic since Josh Bloch has already commented that he doesn't see the use, and in this type of implementation the benefits wouldn't outweigh the performance cost, but it's an interesting discussion nevertheless).