3 ms·
Excellent post. As I broaden (and continue to deepen) my knowledge of programming languages - Ruby, Python, Objective-C, C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Prolog, Sche
by swannodette 16y ago
Excellent post.
As I broaden (and continue to deepen) my knowledge of programming languages - Ruby, Python, Objective-C, C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Prolog, Scheme, Racket, Common Lisp, Io, Haskell, Clojure, Smalltalk ...
... I've become very, very, VERY wary of programmers who are overly concerned about syntax.
I've also become wary of programmers who care too much about regex and string manipulation facilities.
This post does a great job of concretely explaining why I have misgivings about people who express these kinds of opinions.
- jlouis 16y agoYes, the main point is that strings in many cases is the hammer in the toolbox: it always works, even when you needed the saw or the screwdriver. And many webservices can be manipulated from strings alone.
- rue 16y agoTo an extent, syntax is a superficial concern: for the most part, programmers can handle any syntaxes thrown at them even if there are certain ones that feel more natural to them. It isn't entirely superficial, though. A fidgety syntax is a distraction even for the experienced developer. Regexps and a solid String implementation are just fundamental to general-purpose programming nowadays – for a good reason. Though pattern matching is nice too…