2 ms·
Yeah. As a branch from rowang's points, humans are primed from birth to grok complex syntax and specifically leverage that syntax to ingest information streams.
by pharrington 8y ago
Yeah. As a branch from rowang's points, humans are primed from birth to grok complex syntax and specifically leverage that syntax to ingest information streams.
In programming, this is most clearly illustrated by contrasting Lisp and their ilk with Ruby. General considerations of the languages aside, Ruby's syntax is notoriously complex - yet, the language is famous for being one of, if not the most, easiest to read languages currently in use.
- taeric 8y agoRuby is famous for it's advocates claiming it is the easiest to read language. I have yet to see evidence of said claim. Sadly, I have seen the opposite. I, and most of my team, dread dealing with the Ruby package at work. Notorious for obscure tricks and terrible callback based system, where it is ridiculously easy to mess things up.
- ioquatix 8y agoCan you point to some examples with the properties you suggest make Ruby unreadable?
- taeric 8y agoThis implies I think it is unreadable as an intrinsic property of the language. A claim I do not understand, and I am not making. I could point to dense poetry as an example of hard to read English. Or light prose as examples of the opposite. In reality, I'd likely just be picking examples I like. Largely pivoted in the skill of the writer. Not any intrinsic feature of English. And, ironically, it likely takes training and experience to appreciate either. Programming and writing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pharrington 8y agoCan you point to some specific examples with the properties you suggest make Ruby unreadable?