3 ms·
Maybe the rest of Ruby is more "beautiful" and "simple", but those adjectives don't apply to the inconsistency caused by optional code punctuation. I think Ruby
by rcoveson 6y ago
Maybe the rest of Ruby is more "beautiful" and "simple", but those adjectives don't apply to the inconsistency caused by optional code punctuation. I think Ruby users even realized this, and have since imposed strict requirements on their projects that only one style be followed.
Groovy is all the more guilty for carrying the bad tradition forward. It's akin to somebody looking at the success of C and deciding that its macro system must be perfectly preserved going forward.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> I think Ruby users even realized this, and have since imposed strict requirements on their projects that only one style be followed. A common set of conventions in the Ruby community uses both options for optional punctiation, with context controlling which is used for a particular case. E.g., 1. Use a single expression per line, and don't combine the line starting or ending a block with the contents, and don't use semicolons where they are unnecessary (so, semicolons are used only to separate the opening and “end” of single-line blocks.) 2. Use parens among function calls, except omit them in calls that are part of internal DSLs.