3 ms·
Totally agree.Different approaches to the same thing won't add points to the language. P.S. the 'endless method definition' is meaningless, too. > def square
by levi0214 6y ago
Totally agree.Different approaches to the same thing won't add points to the language.
P.S.
the 'endless method definition' is meaningless, too.
> def square(x) = x * x
The original reason of this proposal was:
> Ruby syntax is full of “end”s. I’m paranoid that the ends end Ruby. I hope Ruby is endless. --mame (Yusuke Endoh)
It sounds like "let's add a new syntax for lisp because it has too many brackets"
- shakna 6y ago> It sounds like "let's add a new syntax for lisp because it has too many brackets" You'll find wisp [0] implemented for several of the larger Schemes. Often because the rationale for adding another syntax can be more nuanced and actually benefitial than a quick joke. [1] Whilst you're right that caution absolutely applies when modifying a language's syntax, there may be a case for it that reduces friction for the programmer. The change might have been proposed with a joke. I doubt the entire rationale ended there, however. [0] https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/srfi-119.html https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/srfi-119.html [1] https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html#rationale https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html#rationale
- nitrogen 6y agoThis is a feature present in Kotlin, and it's useful for mathematical functions and simple-but-not-trivial getters.