4 ms·
To me this seems like a clear loss. The syntax is (as far as I can tell) strictly more verbose than the existing assignment syntax. Ruby is already plagued by a
by ericpauley 6y ago
To me this seems like a clear loss. The syntax is (as far as I can tell) strictly more verbose than the existing assignment syntax. Ruby is already plagued by a million-and-one ways to do everything, but at least in other cases simplicity (à la zen of Python) trades off for brevity.
- eejjjj82 6y ago+100
- dhagz 6y agoI don't even care about the verbosity - it's just ugly syntax. If I'm skimming a file that uses that syntax, I could easily get confused and think there's a comparison going on. One of Ruby's big draws (to me, at least) is code that is incredibly expressive and code that is aesthetically pleasing to look at. I feel this is serving the expressiveness at huge cost to aesthetics, and honestly there's not much gain to expressiveness in my opinion. EDIT: I also completely forgot about the existing hashrocket syntax for maps.
- drusepth 6y agoI don't particularly like the idea of rightward assignment (although the syntax itself seems fine to me), but the "million-and-one ways to do everything" is the biggest reason I strongly prefer the language over more "constrained/limited" languages like Python. In those terms, this seems like a definite win for the language (and those who choose to use it) for me.
- baash05 6y ago+ 100