5 ms·

Language Design: This stuff doesn't matter that much. Focus on more important things. Syntax isn't unimportant, but don't waste energy on trivial matters like

Language Design: This stuff doesn't matter that much. Focus on more important things. Syntax isn't unimportant, but don't waste energy on trivial matters like these. Just pick something and people will get used to it. Focus on the semantics of your language - that's what really matters.

bsder 6y ago
Actually, syntax IS important because a language has to be able to be read by both a human AND a computer, nowadays. One of the things that using ":" does is it makes what is "type" and what is "name" unambiguous to both human and computer. This is, famously, one of the failings of C/C++. Determining what is a type and what is a name is excruciatingly difficult.
- millimeterman 6y ago
  Sure, but there's no arguing to be done there. Is the grammar context free? Ideally, can it be parsed with small constant lookahead? Yes? Cool, no further discussion needed. I'd be more open to this kind of discussion if there was an ounce of actual research behind what makes syntax more/less readable. As it is, it's just a bunch of people arguing endlessly about their very specific preferences. Just pick something sensible and move on.
Someone 6y ago
Language design affects how good autocomplete and error messages can be. That is hugely important. Having said that, this article doesn’t advocate “ident: Type”, it advocates ”marker ident: Type”. That marker is essential for ease of parsing and thus for autocomplete (it won’t try to autocomplete the ‘ident’ part by looking at variables in scope or function names, for example) and error messages (it could signal when name shadowing occurs, for example)
mamcx 6y ago
>Syntax isn't unimportant #104#101#108#108#111,[Space]world![Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][Space][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [LF][LF][LF] yep, no important at all.
- millimeterman 6y ago
  I didn't say "syntax doesn't matter, pick any ridiculous thing you want". That's what I mean by "not unimportant", though I admit it's not exactly clear that's what I meant. My point is that within the space of reasonable, comprehensible syntaxes, there are no demonstrable differences worth arguing about.
  - mamcx 6y ago
    >there are no demonstrable differences worth arguing about. That is a big claim. Is very easy to believe (I do it before, when my knowledge of programming languages was about just 3 or 4. Now is more than 12). : But is clearly false, and is easy to prove: async/await go chan fn sort<T>(of:list<T>...) try/catch match All the above are just small things that have a HUGE impact in how develop programs. Also, in matter of "small" stuff that could look insignificant: [1, 2, 3] + 1 = [2, 3, 4] this one is a huge deal in certain niches, also, another "small" and insignificant thing: SELECT ... FROM source source SELECT ... All this are just small things. Not all that obvious at the time. Remember how before the times of GOTO the idea of more specialized control flow was unthinkable in the minds of many. Syntax MATTER MOST. Because, is OUR interface. The space of improvement is not super-big, truth, but it impact hugely. Also, when done correctly, it make the semantics fit like a glove or not. Another obvious example: Do concurrency whithout syntax help (just using threads). Or performant, safe, concurrency friendly, zero-gc, system-programming, etc without what rust and other langs have bridged.
    - millimeterman 6y ago
      I also know many languages (which is hardly some grand accomplishment) and it’s my firm opinion that syntax MATTERS LEAST. You spend some time getting used to it and it never really bothers you again. Semantics matter most - syntax is just an interface to the important stuff. The difference between Python, C++, Haskell, Common Lisp, Prolog, and SQL isn’t syntax. If it was, everyone would pick their favorite syntax and use it all the time. What matters is how well the semantics (and their potential performance implications) match your problem. The syntax just needs to be a decent enough interface to the semantics. Frankly, it seems to me like most of your “counterexamples” are about language semantics, not syntax. Here’s the thing. Would I like every language to have a consistent, beautifully designed syntax backed by UX research and testing? Absolutely. But language designers have bigger fish to fry. There’s little value in wasting energy talking about syntax once it reaches a basic state of acceptability. I do amend my statement - you’re right that it’s a big, unsubstantiated claim. There are no _demonstrated_ differences. I haven’t seen an ounce of evidence that it makes a difference beyond familiarity. Furthermore, even if it did, that wouldn’t make it top priority. It would just make arguments about it sensible.

bsder 6y ago

Actually, syntax IS important because a language has to be able to be read by both a human AND a computer, nowadays. One of the things that using ":" does is it makes what is "type" and what is "name" unambiguous to both human and computer. This is, famously, one of the failings of C/C++. Determining what is a type and what is a name is excruciatingly difficult.

millimeterman 6y ago
Sure, but there's no arguing to be done there. Is the grammar context free? Ideally, can it be parsed with small constant lookahead? Yes? Cool, no further discussion needed. I'd be more open to this kind of discussion if there was an ounce of actual research behind what makes syntax more/less readable. As it is, it's just a bunch of people arguing endlessly about their very specific preferences. Just pick something sensible and move on.

Someone 6y ago

Language design affects how good autocomplete and error messages can be. That is hugely important. Having said that, this article doesn’t advocate “ident: Type”, it advocates ”marker ident: Type”. That marker is essential for ease of parsing and thus for autocomplete (it won’t try to autocomplete the ‘ident’ part by looking at variables in scope or function names, for example) and error messages (it could signal when name shadowing occurs, for example)

mamcx 6y ago

>Syntax isn't unimportant #104#101#108#108#111,[Space]world![Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][Space][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Tab][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [Space][Space][Space][Tab][Tab][Space][Space][Tab][Space][Space][LF] [Tab][LF][Space][Space] [LF][LF][LF] yep, no important at all.

millimeterman 6y ago
I didn't say "syntax doesn't matter, pick any ridiculous thing you want". That's what I mean by "not unimportant", though I admit it's not exactly clear that's what I meant. My point is that within the space of reasonable, comprehensible syntaxes, there are no demonstrable differences worth arguing about.
- mamcx 6y ago
  >there are no demonstrable differences worth arguing about. That is a big claim. Is very easy to believe (I do it before, when my knowledge of programming languages was about just 3 or 4. Now is more than 12). : But is clearly false, and is easy to prove: async/await go chan fn sort<T>(of:list<T>...) try/catch match All the above are just small things that have a HUGE impact in how develop programs. Also, in matter of "small" stuff that could look insignificant: [1, 2, 3] + 1 = [2, 3, 4] this one is a huge deal in certain niches, also, another "small" and insignificant thing: SELECT ... FROM source source SELECT ... All this are just small things. Not all that obvious at the time. Remember how before the times of GOTO the idea of more specialized control flow was unthinkable in the minds of many. Syntax MATTER MOST. Because, is OUR interface. The space of improvement is not super-big, truth, but it impact hugely. Also, when done correctly, it make the semantics fit like a glove or not. Another obvious example: Do concurrency whithout syntax help (just using threads). Or performant, safe, concurrency friendly, zero-gc, system-programming, etc without what rust and other langs have bridged.
  - millimeterman 6y ago
    I also know many languages (which is hardly some grand accomplishment) and it’s my firm opinion that syntax MATTERS LEAST. You spend some time getting used to it and it never really bothers you again. Semantics matter most - syntax is just an interface to the important stuff. The difference between Python, C++, Haskell, Common Lisp, Prolog, and SQL isn’t syntax. If it was, everyone would pick their favorite syntax and use it all the time. What matters is how well the semantics (and their potential performance implications) match your problem. The syntax just needs to be a decent enough interface to the semantics. Frankly, it seems to me like most of your “counterexamples” are about language semantics, not syntax. Here’s the thing. Would I like every language to have a consistent, beautifully designed syntax backed by UX research and testing? Absolutely. But language designers have bigger fish to fry. There’s little value in wasting energy talking about syntax once it reaches a basic state of acceptability. I do amend my statement - you’re right that it’s a big, unsubstantiated claim. There are no _demonstrated_ differences. I haven’t seen an ounce of evidence that it makes a difference beyond familiarity. Furthermore, even if it did, that wouldn’t make it top priority. It would just make arguments about it sensible.