4 ms·

Lexical Scanning In Go is a charming piece of programming: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxaD_trXwRE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxaD_trXwRE A good debuggab

Lexical Scanning In Go is a charming piece of programming: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxaD_trXwRE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxaD_trXwRE A good debuggable piece of code explains what it is trying to do by being clearly written and conforming to a consistent and logical model. I don’t think I would ever have invented this type of lexer pattern in Go by myself, but would be very grateful to come across it in a code base I had to fix. Like Duff’s Device mentioned in this thread, it has just the right amount of cleverness without becoming inscrutable. Also, if you’ll excuse some avuncular pride, my niece and I wrote some code yesterday. She asked me how many times grandma’s clock chimes every day and we ended up with the following Ruby: 2 * (1..12).reduce(&:+)

Shoop 7y ago
Cool one liner! Here's some other languages: Python: 2 * sum([x for x in range(1, 13)]) Haskell: 2 * sum [1..12]
- why_only_15 7y ago
  You don't need the list comprehension for python - just 2 * sum(range(1, 13))
  - cool-RR 7y ago
    And drop the 1, too
    - Godel_unicode 7y ago
      I prefer the explicit example for being explicit, I find it more pythonic. GPs example is perfect Python; every character has meaning, and it's extremely readable even for non-programmers.
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  What’s quite elegant about Ruby (in and of itself, not in comparison to your examples) is how consistently it is implemented using its own simple set of core features, with very little magic or syntactic sugar. reduce, Enumerable, what the & operator is doing etc. What’s so challenging about Ruby is how the language can be abused by library vendors to make all kinds of surprising magic and homegrown syntactic sugar.
  - bnegreve 7y ago
    > What’s quite elegant about Ruby is how consistently it is implemented using its own simple set of core features, with very little magic or syntactic sugar. Honestly, I don't think this has much to do with Ruby. This a consequence of using reduce or any other higher-order functions, which come from functional programming, and are now available in almost all modern multi-paradigm programming languages (including Python and Haskell). I you like this kind of constructs, you should definitely learn a functional programming language, you'll love it.
mxbr 7y ago
2 * (1..12).reduce(&:+) You could also use the closed summation formula: (n^2 + n) / 2. In our case that shortens to just 12*13=156.

Shoop 7y ago

Cool one liner! Here's some other languages: Python: 2 * sum([x for x in range(1, 13)]) Haskell: 2 * sum [1..12]

why_only_15 7y ago
You don't need the list comprehension for python - just 2 * sum(range(1, 13))
- cool-RR 7y ago
  And drop the 1, too
  - Godel_unicode 7y ago
    I prefer the explicit example for being explicit, I find it more pythonic. GPs example is perfect Python; every character has meaning, and it's extremely readable even for non-programmers.
gorgoiler 7y ago
What’s quite elegant about Ruby (in and of itself, not in comparison to your examples) is how consistently it is implemented using its own simple set of core features, with very little magic or syntactic sugar. reduce, Enumerable, what the & operator is doing etc. What’s so challenging about Ruby is how the language can be abused by library vendors to make all kinds of surprising magic and homegrown syntactic sugar.
- bnegreve 7y ago
  > What’s quite elegant about Ruby is how consistently it is implemented using its own simple set of core features, with very little magic or syntactic sugar. Honestly, I don't think this has much to do with Ruby. This a consequence of using reduce or any other higher-order functions, which come from functional programming, and are now available in almost all modern multi-paradigm programming languages (including Python and Haskell). I you like this kind of constructs, you should definitely learn a functional programming language, you'll love it.

mxbr 7y ago

2 * (1..12).reduce(&:+) You could also use the closed summation formula: (n^2 + n) / 2. In our case that shortens to just 12*13=156.