4 ms·

I'd be happy to just have less variation in the syntax corresponding to established semantics; if you're designing a new language, please don't make some 'nift

by icek 9y ago

I'd be happy to just have less variation in the syntax corresponding to established semantics; if you're designing a new language, please don't make some 'nifty' new way of typing out dictionaries. All this does is force me to hunker down with several beginning chapters of your programming language book instead of just skipping to the relevant differences from languages I already know. If there's a good reason for the difference, by all means, go for it. But if there isn't, please reconsider.

14113 9y ago
Doesn't the author somewhat argue the opposite? If form follows function, then surely a "new" way of doing dictionaries should have a new syntax?
- icek 9y ago
  I'll be more specific: if it's the same construct, please make it look familiar. If it's novel, then surely, yes, appearing novel will help me.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    I like your word choice: "help". Not just not hurt; it will help. Different things should look different.
jnordwick 9y ago
Strongly disagree. So that leaves little room for alternative language paradigms then. If you want dictionaries to look like JS or Python then what are languages like Lisp and APL to do, not use coherent syntax. Or what about just making different use of the limited number of symbols on the keyboard to make the use more consistent? Id rather have a more consistent language or one that introduced new concepts than one familiar in syntax just for the sake of being familiar.
- icek 9y ago
  Sure, I understand. But it's not just a case of new languages coming up and reusing concepts from the set of all currently-available syntaxes; they in fact invent wholly new ones. It's reminiscent of this: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ Edit: further to your point, I agree that my gripes are merely about an up-front cost, whereas consistency can be helpful throughout your use of a language. Edit again: I essentially seek consistency within and among languages. I don't mean to state one should come at the cost of the other at all times.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >So that leaves little room for alternative language paradigms then. If you want dictionaries to look like JS or Python then what are languages like Lisp and APL to do, not use coherent syntax. Yes, but what about the benefits from the regularity and uniformity?
nailer 9y ago
> All this does is force me If you're a programmer now, you're a secondary audience to the masses of people who will program in the future. If the language is going to have the most impact, what they prefer supersedes what you (and I) prefer. > If there's a good reason for the difference, by all means, go for it. Of course and agreed. Nothing should exist without reason. Antoine de Saint Exupery etc.

by icek 9y ago

14113 9y ago

Doesn't the author somewhat argue the opposite? If form follows function, then surely a "new" way of doing dictionaries should have a new syntax?

icek 9y ago
I'll be more specific: if it's the same construct, please make it look familiar. If it's novel, then surely, yes, appearing novel will help me.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I like your word choice: "help". Not just not hurt; it will help. Different things should look different.

jnordwick 9y ago

Strongly disagree. So that leaves little room for alternative language paradigms then. If you want dictionaries to look like JS or Python then what are languages like Lisp and APL to do, not use coherent syntax. Or what about just making different use of the limited number of symbols on the keyboard to make the use more consistent? Id rather have a more consistent language or one that introduced new concepts than one familiar in syntax just for the sake of being familiar.

icek 9y ago
Sure, I understand. But it's not just a case of new languages coming up and reusing concepts from the set of all currently-available syntaxes; they in fact invent wholly new ones. It's reminiscent of this: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ Edit: further to your point, I agree that my gripes are merely about an up-front cost, whereas consistency can be helpful throughout your use of a language. Edit again: I essentially seek consistency within and among languages. I don't mean to state one should come at the cost of the other at all times.
coldtea 9y ago
>So that leaves little room for alternative language paradigms then. If you want dictionaries to look like JS or Python then what are languages like Lisp and APL to do, not use coherent syntax. Yes, but what about the benefits from the regularity and uniformity?

nailer 9y ago

> All this does is force me If you're a programmer now, you're a secondary audience to the masses of people who will program in the future. If the language is going to have the most impact, what they prefer supersedes what you (and I) prefer. > If there's a good reason for the difference, by all means, go for it. Of course and agreed. Nothing should exist without reason. Antoine de Saint Exupery etc.