3 ms·
>>We love Ruby's efficiency for writing code. >Ruby's syntax is one of the worst parts of Ruby. [0] Your reference is about parsing the syntax, I am certain t
by rubyfan 11y ago
>>We love Ruby's efficiency for writing code.
>Ruby's syntax is one of the worst parts of Ruby. [0]
Your reference is about parsing the syntax, I am certain the authors mean they want Ruby syntax from the coders perspective not from the parsers perspective.
- pathsjs 11y agoHumans have to parse the syntax as well...
- PeCaN 11y agoNearly all the syntax ambiguities I've had in Ruby were resolved by either adjusting some whitespace or adding parens, and neither make the code any more difficult to read. In my experience Ruby is easy enough for humans to parse (really nice in 95% of cases, weird in 4%, WTF IS HAPPENING in 1%).
- rubyfan 11y agoThat's not really the context for the reference. Also beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Crystal authors aren't really debating the goodness of Ruby syntax... That they think it's good is kind of the precondition to Crystal existing.