4 ms·

Omega is undefined when the relative weights of [expressiveness, terseness, maintainability, readability, flexibility] are undefined. For any given set of weig

by endtime 16y ago

Omega is undefined when the relative weights of [expressiveness, terseness, maintainability, readability, flexibility] are undefined. For any given set of weights you could perhaps come up with a reasonable answer (even then you have to try to quantify things like maintainability), since some languages are more terse but less readable, or more readable but less expressive, etc. If all the weights are equal, then I'd argue for Python, though I'm sure plenty of Rubyists and Lispers and Haskellians would disagree.

Inaimathi 16y ago
This is true, and I don't have extensive enough experience to weigh those correctly (and even if I did, I would be heavily biased by the languages I currently use). This is why I opted to wuss out rather than risk getting it horribly wrong. And yes, from what I've seen/heard, plenty of Rubyists, Lispers, Haskelliens, etc. would certainly disagree with you.
- endtime 16y ago
  I don't think there's one true set of weights - rather, I think it's a matter of personal preference (and, to a certain extent, the task at hand - maintainability is irrelevant for some tasks and vital for others).
  - Inaimathi 16y ago
    I could see this in the extremes (a one-of data-munging script has no maintainability requirement, for example), but accepting the weights as completely subjective seems dangerously close to saying "All languages are equally powerful, and it's just a matter of preference", which I disagree with because it would invalidate the Blub Paradox. It may be the case that the weights are affected by individual tastes and requirements, but the construction of the language (and therefore some inherent property of the language, rather than of the user or of the situation) would almost certainly affect those weights as well.
    - endtime 16y ago
      >accepting the weights as completely subjective seems dangerously close to saying "All languages are equally powerful, and it's just a matter of preference" I don't agree with this statement...I would say that Java is worse than Python for just about any given set of weights.

by endtime 16y ago

Inaimathi 16y ago

This is true, and I don't have extensive enough experience to weigh those correctly (and even if I did, I would be heavily biased by the languages I currently use). This is why I opted to wuss out rather than risk getting it horribly wrong. And yes, from what I've seen/heard, plenty of Rubyists, Lispers, Haskelliens, etc. would certainly disagree with you.

endtime 16y ago
I don't think there's one true set of weights - rather, I think it's a matter of personal preference (and, to a certain extent, the task at hand - maintainability is irrelevant for some tasks and vital for others).
- Inaimathi 16y ago
  I could see this in the extremes (a one-of data-munging script has no maintainability requirement, for example), but accepting the weights as completely subjective seems dangerously close to saying "All languages are equally powerful, and it's just a matter of preference", which I disagree with because it would invalidate the Blub Paradox. It may be the case that the weights are affected by individual tastes and requirements, but the construction of the language (and therefore some inherent property of the language, rather than of the user or of the situation) would almost certainly affect those weights as well.
  - endtime 16y ago
    >accepting the weights as completely subjective seems dangerously close to saying "All languages are equally powerful, and it's just a matter of preference" I don't agree with this statement...I would say that Java is worse than Python for just about any given set of weights.