4 ms·
> I find the latter easier to read and lends itself to a fluent, lightweight style. Maybe I'm bikeshedding, but I think this is a nontrivial part of why people
by whlr 7y ago
> I find the latter easier to read and lends itself to a fluent, lightweight style.
Maybe I'm bikeshedding, but I think this is a nontrivial part of why people like OOP languages. Being able to read right to left, without nested parens, makes code comprehension easier.
I think the mathematical notation for function application has held programming languages back. I realize that there's a huge benefit to uniformity of syntax across languages, and that syntax is ultimately much less important than semantics, but I wish we could settle on something better than f(x). I really appreciate languages that are willing to do something different (e.g. haskell and lisp).
- smabie 7y agoThere's the pipe operator in a lot of languages (|>) to try and solve this problem, but it has always felt clunky to me. Compare: f(g(h(x))) x.h.g.f x |> f |> g |> h I think most people prefer the second one to all the rest.