4 ms·
This is a ridiculous strawman. Brainfuck has a tiny grammar, yeah, but its deliberately designed so as not to be readable. It also has an odd method of executio
by s4vi0r 9y ago
This is a ridiculous strawman. Brainfuck has a tiny grammar, yeah, but its deliberately designed so as not to be readable. It also has an odd method of execution (I.e. your program is a big tape of memory and you manipulate the cells to do stuff) that makes doing anything worthwhile impossible to reason about, especially with the opaque syntax added on top.
Scala neither has opaque syntax (see: many/most new languages borrowing its name:type format, smartly choosing [] over <> for type parameters, etc) nor does it have some weird execution model. Its a perfectly reasonable metric to use when talking about a normal/popular language, especially when people who don't even use the language complain about it being bloated and compare it to C++ which has a grammar twice the size of Scala. I really wish people would stop spreading FUD over these kinds of things :/
- superlopuh 9y agoWhy do you prefer [] to <> for type parameters?
- simon_o 9y agoIt is superior for readability and parsing, and combined together with ident: Type, you have a very consistent syntax (unlike other languages with generics, where you define e.g. generic methods one way, but call them in another).
- nine_k 9y ago> languages borrowing its name:type format To be honest, this format was first introduced by ALGOL around 1960. It does make more sense, though, compared to C's.