3 ms·

In languages where parameter names are optional, you can say foo(1, 1, create = true) This is the best of both worlds, allowing you to only name parameter

In languages where parameter names are optional, you can say foo(1, 1, create = true) This is the best of both worlds, allowing you to only name parameters when there can be ambiguity (for example when the function takes two int parameters and both mean very different things). Smalltalk forces you to always name your parameters, which leads to overly verbose source files.

igouy 9y ago
I don't think any of us know what: foo(1, 1, create = true) :is supposed to do. Please show a meaningful example so we can see whether the Smalltalk is overly verbose or your alternative is overly ambiguous.
- hota_mazi 9y ago
  I tried to pick up an example as generic as possible so you could understand my general point instead of focusing on this specific example, and you choose to focus on this specific example. <sigh>. How about this: createWindowAtCoordinates(10, 10, redraw = true) vs createWindowAtCoordinates(x = 10, y = 10, redraw = true) Regardless of how you feel about this specific example, surely you can agree that it's not always necessary to specify all the parameter by names?
  - igouy 9y ago
    So you mean that in this case we might assume the conventional order x coordinate first and y coordinate second would be understood. However (the specifics always matter) if we're assuming that, and we're bothered about verbosity then why say: createWindowAtCoordinates(10, 10, redraw = true) :instead of assuming that it will be understand that the window will be created at a point: createWindowAt(10, 10, redraw = true) :and something more like a Smalltalk method send: Window new openAt: 10@10 redraw: true :where we've used the x then y convention, and a binary message @, to create a point (without mandatory parameter names).
    - hota_mazi 9y ago
      > So you mean that in this case we might assume the conventional order x coordinate first and y coordinate second would be understood ... and again, you focus on the specific example and completely miss my more general point. I'll give this one more try: I prefer a language that gives me the option of specifying the parameters names over one that forces me to always specify them.
      - igouy 9y ago
        > … you focus on the specific example… That's the only way we can see whether what you claim makes sense. > … which leads to sources that are much more verbose than they need to be. We can see that for the example you provided, the Smalltalk style need not be "much more verbose" than the alternative you provided. Using positional arguments will be a little more concise than using keyword arguments, but only a little.

igouy 9y ago

I don't think any of us know what: foo(1, 1, create = true) :is supposed to do. Please show a meaningful example so we can see whether the Smalltalk is overly verbose or your alternative is overly ambiguous.

hota_mazi 9y ago
I tried to pick up an example as generic as possible so you could understand my general point instead of focusing on this specific example, and you choose to focus on this specific example. <sigh>. How about this: createWindowAtCoordinates(10, 10, redraw = true) vs createWindowAtCoordinates(x = 10, y = 10, redraw = true) Regardless of how you feel about this specific example, surely you can agree that it's not always necessary to specify all the parameter by names?
- igouy 9y ago
  So you mean that in this case we might assume the conventional order x coordinate first and y coordinate second would be understood. However (the specifics always matter) if we're assuming that, and we're bothered about verbosity then why say: createWindowAtCoordinates(10, 10, redraw = true) :instead of assuming that it will be understand that the window will be created at a point: createWindowAt(10, 10, redraw = true) :and something more like a Smalltalk method send: Window new openAt: 10@10 redraw: true :where we've used the x then y convention, and a binary message @, to create a point (without mandatory parameter names).
  - hota_mazi 9y ago
    > So you mean that in this case we might assume the conventional order x coordinate first and y coordinate second would be understood ... and again, you focus on the specific example and completely miss my more general point. I'll give this one more try: I prefer a language that gives me the option of specifying the parameters names over one that forces me to always specify them.
    - igouy 9y ago
      > … you focus on the specific example… That's the only way we can see whether what you claim makes sense. > … which leads to sources that are much more verbose than they need to be. We can see that for the example you provided, the Smalltalk style need not be "much more verbose" than the alternative you provided. Using positional arguments will be a little more concise than using keyword arguments, but only a little.