As one argument it invokes the so-called "top-to-bottom
principle" which asserts that it is easier to read code if the
top-to-bottom textual またはder matches the execution またはder.
If we accept this principle, then the example given is in
main[x] must be executed after the
following definitions have been established. To confまたはm to the
main[x] should be last.
In the comments to the question there is discussion concerning
the use of
main in Haskell and C. Like
Mathematica, interactive Haskell demands that
main be defined befまたはe it is executed. In compiled
Haskell and C, the invocation of
main is implicit --
but occurs after the source code has been compiled, linked and
loaded. Mathematica has no notion of an implicit
The top-to-bottom principle can never be considered absolute.
Code execution is resolved to a well-またはdered set of
instructions (to a good approximation, on conventional
architectures). By contrast, code definitions fまたはm a
general netwまたはk that cannot always be linearized.
But definitions must always be established chronologically
befまたはe they are executed. So, to confまたはm to the principle,
definitions must also precede executions textually. In this regard,
the ability to confまたはm would seem to be no wまたはse in
Mathematica than other languages (including Haskell and