3 ms·

That would be another poor choice as "mod" is used as "modulo" - there's no need to abbreviate "long" words like "module", because they are not used so often an

by nikolay 10y ago

That would be another poor choice as "mod" is used as "modulo" - there's no need to abbreviate "long" words like "module", because they are not used so often and bringing ugliness and confusion just to save a couple of characters per file is not worthy! In this case, you don't even need the "fun" keyword as syntax-wise, "=>" alone can be used like in other languages as (parameter1, parameter2) => parameter1 + parameter2, for example - it's obvious enough without having to prefix with anything! Anyway, I see that you want to be "different" in hopes to be "better", but, indeed, you're just "weird", instead. "+." for float addition, "^" for concatenation, etc. "(" <val> ":" <type> ")" instead of the shorter and more readable <val> "as" <type>. For example, why did you choose "mutable" and not "mut"? See, your language is full of inconsistencies, it's not well-thought, it's not intuitive! For example, you chose "rec", which usually means "record" for "recursive"! In your "for"-loop, you have just "to", not "upto", but then "downto"! A good choice borrowed by some old languages would be to use the optional "by" <step>, which defaults to +1, but in a case of a "downto", would be -1, and thus giving you a more powerful loop!

jordwalke 10y ago
You don't know of any other languages that use `mod` to represent "module"? Say, perhaps, the one you just advocated for in another thread? And there are in fact issues with using x => y syntax for lambdas without a leading fun/fn keyword: let x = (this, is, a, really, long, thing ) => 10; - In that example it's not possible to tell if the leading ( is the start of a pattern for the sake of lambda, or a tuple. This happens with ES6 today as well (destructured record argument). It's not just a matter of human readability, it's a matter of building an efficient parser. - The (x : y) syntax for type annotations is not new or weird to many people. That's the syntax used by ML, OCaml, and JS (Flow). - We're likely going to swap some operators for string concat, so that it would be the more common ++ operator. - The rest of the observations are good and we should address them soon.
- nikolay 10y ago
  I know Rust uses "mod", but Rust is consistent and predictable - it also uses "mut" unlike in Reason. Regarding ":" to denote type - I like it and it's widely used across various language, but not enforced with parentheses for typecasting.

by nikolay 10y ago

jordwalke 10y ago

You don't know of any other languages that use `mod` to represent "module"? Say, perhaps, the one you just advocated for in another thread? And there are in fact issues with using x => y syntax for lambdas without a leading fun/fn keyword: let x = (this, is, a, really, long, thing ) => 10; - In that example it's not possible to tell if the leading ( is the start of a pattern for the sake of lambda, or a tuple. This happens with ES6 today as well (destructured record argument). It's not just a matter of human readability, it's a matter of building an efficient parser. - The (x : y) syntax for type annotations is not new or weird to many people. That's the syntax used by ML, OCaml, and JS (Flow). - We're likely going to swap some operators for string concat, so that it would be the more common ++ operator. - The rest of the observations are good and we should address them soon.

nikolay 10y ago
I know Rust uses "mod", but Rust is consistent and predictable - it also uses "mut" unlike in Reason. Regarding ":" to denote type - I like it and it's widely used across various language, but not enforced with parentheses for typecasting.