4 ms·
“Syntactic sugar found to be leading cause of semantic diabetes.” Steve Dekorte on Twitter recently http://twitter.com/stevedekorte/status/7926192582 http://t
by hassy 17y ago
“Syntactic sugar found to be leading cause of semantic diabetes.”
Steve Dekorte on Twitter recently
http://twitter.com/stevedekorte/status/7926192582 http://twitter.com/stevedekorte/status/7926192582
- eru 17y agoIs it just witty? or is syntactic sugar bad?
- jwhitlark 17y agoIt seems to me that syntactic sugar is the crutch that language designers throw to their users when they won't/can't give them macros. I think the idea behind the quote is not that it's bad in an absolute sense, just that it's a second best solution.
- eru 17y agoUnderstandable. I like Lisp [1], but I am also quite content with the way Haskell looks like. And Haskell has a lot of syntactic sugar. Lisp just enables you to grow your own sugar beets. [1] Actually I like Scheme. Common Lisp is ugly.
- aerique 17y agoIt is probably more of a preference. Since not everyone is using Lisp as their main programming language (don't ask me why) it seems that some people prefer more syntactic sugar sprinkled through their language. Personally I stopped preferring sugar in both my tea and programming languages a long time ago.
- eru 17y agoI don't sugar my tea, either. In a sense Lisp is the ultimate in syntactic sugar. I'd like to use Scheme more, but I am currently in love with Haskell too much and use Ocaml at work. Matthias Felleisen does very interesting work with Scheme.