5 ms·

Sick article. I'd say I'm a reluctant advocate of this style, and the author touched upon the two points that I always present to my colleagues: 1. The focus o

Sick article. I'd say I'm a reluctant advocate of this style, and the author touched upon the two points that I always present to my colleagues: 1. The focus on verbs can make things clearer. 2. Under ideal circumstances, it's no more complex than Unix pipes. But I'm still not 100% convinced it makes for more readable code. Sometimes I still need variable names for documentation purposes. This isn't so bad in Haskell, since the type signature can make the intention known, but something like J...

remexre 6y ago
I've been trying to write a bunch of Forth, and I've gotta say stack comments (essentially type signatures, though typically not checked) are invaluable; that, and making definitions small enough that you can verify that they're obviously correct within a few seconds. (Typically, most definitions are one-liners.)
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> Sick article A little red-faced here but I don't know if you're saying it's good or bad (suspect former but not sure). Matters as upon it depends whether I read the article or not, so... help me out? :)
- jim-jim-jim 6y ago
  Sick = good
  - timbit42 6y ago
    Shows your (lack of) age.
h3rald 6y ago
Having created a small concatenative language myself[1], no, the pure concatenative style with no variables and stack combinators is just too much for a normally-wired brain. BUT! I tried to cheat a little bit to make things more readable. Take this example from the min front page, which showcases its concatenative style: . ls-r (mtime now 3600 - >) filter Can you guess what it does? You might, but what about this: . ls-r :files ((mtime > (now - 3600)) ><) =changed-in-last-hour @files #changed-in-last-hour filter Now ok, I went insane with sigils and weird operators but: - creating variables helps - using infix notation via the infix-dequote (><) operator makes expressions much more readable Why would I use this rather than a traditional language? It helps reasoning in terms of point-free function composition and in some case it is faster to work with, i.e. processing rules, pipelines, task sequences etc. [1] https://min-lang.org https://min-lang.org

remexre 6y ago

I've been trying to write a bunch of Forth, and I've gotta say stack comments (essentially type signatures, though typically not checked) are invaluable; that, and making definitions small enough that you can verify that they're obviously correct within a few seconds. (Typically, most definitions are one-liners.)

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> Sick article A little red-faced here but I don't know if you're saying it's good or bad (suspect former but not sure). Matters as upon it depends whether I read the article or not, so... help me out? :)

jim-jim-jim 6y ago
Sick = good
- timbit42 6y ago
  Shows your (lack of) age.

h3rald 6y ago

Having created a small concatenative language myself[1], no, the pure concatenative style with no variables and stack combinators is just too much for a normally-wired brain. BUT! I tried to cheat a little bit to make things more readable. Take this example from the min front page, which showcases its concatenative style: . ls-r (mtime now 3600 - >) filter Can you guess what it does? You might, but what about this: . ls-r :files ((mtime > (now - 3600)) ><) =changed-in-last-hour @files #changed-in-last-hour filter Now ok, I went insane with sigils and weird operators but: - creating variables helps - using infix notation via the infix-dequote (><) operator makes expressions much more readable Why would I use this rather than a traditional language? It helps reasoning in terms of point-free function composition and in some case it is faster to work with, i.e. processing rules, pipelines, task sequences etc. [1] https://min-lang.org https://min-lang.org