4 ms·
Not in defense of Arc, but so far your definition for "concise " is the length of the program. But by mandatory alternating '{' and '(', you add a level of comp
by eugenejen 19y ago
Not in defense of Arc, but so far your definition for "concise " is the length of the program. But by mandatory alternating '{' and '(', you add a level of complexity in grammar to Arc' . I guess that is the reason you feel it as less powerful. So maybe 'concise' does not mean 'short' but means consistent and easy grammar for expressing idea. I guess that's why people like Ruby better than Python better than Perl.
- jimbokun 19y agoGiven your criteria of "consistent and easy grammar" I would put Python before Ruby. There may be other measures that make Ruby more 'concise' than Python.
- eugenejen 19y agoSo I guess the original post is really a philosophical question. Because unless "concise" can be quantified and describable, there is no way to judge a choice of design of language is better than the other as science, because no refutation of theory can be designed and verified. The original post only discover that shortness doesn't mean powerful, it can be cumbersome given a choice on a simple rules in grammar, then create a big mess for maintenance.