3 ms·
Why must every new language use a completely unique syntax? This is so tiring...why can't they just stick to syntax that everyone knows...each one has to reinv
by OneGuy123 6y ago
Why must every new language use a completely unique syntax?
This is so tiring...why can't they just stick to syntax that everyone knows...each one has to reinvent random new syntax and destroy old conventions that people already know thus needlesly creating friction.
- aarpmcgee 6y agoYou might very well be fighting against a force of nature, i.e. shouting at the wind.
- dmit 6y agoWell, if you split "language" into 1) syntax, 2) semantics, 3) standard library, then why would you think that #1 (syntax) is the only part that can't be improved upon?
- Jtsummers 6y agoMost of it doesn't seem terribly new. It's like a hybrid of some classic-Algol-style, C-style, and Haskell-style (particularly at the function/struct declarations), but mostly C-style. That he seems to have thought deliberately about stepwise refactoring is actually pretty nice. This is hard to do in many languages (where refactoring-to-function/method is often a wholesale endeavor). Doing it stepwise means you can iterate and test more deliberately throughout the process, and is nicer if you're not using a refactoring tool beyond your text editor. In the end, reading the example code caused me no headaches, it was as clear as any other C/Algol-derived language.