4 ms·

The Smalltalk syntax is pretty esoteric, but even if you become used to it, the fact that it requires all parameters to be named makes it an exceptionally verbo

The Smalltalk syntax is pretty esoteric, but even if you become used to it, the fact that it requires all parameters to be named makes it an exceptionally verbose language that takes longer to parse in your head than most. I much prefer more modern languages that allow you to explicitly name the parameters when you need to, but other than that, never requires it (e.g. Kotlin and Swift).

overgard 5y ago
I think you have to separate out verbosity that adds clarity vs verbosity as ceremony. For instance, seeing "public static void" all over the place in java is irritating. On the other hand, if I'm doing a code review and I can't do a quick "jump to definition", I'm much happier reading code like: t rotateAround: v by: 90 degrees toRadian. Vs. t.rotate(v, 3.14/2) Sure the former is slightly more verbose (not by much though), but it tells me so much more and I don't need to look anything up. Also even though it's longer, none of it is fluff or ceremonial.
- hota_mazi 5y ago
  You are trying to excuse Smalltalk's excessive verbosity by pointing out Java's excessive verbosity. Yes, Java is excessively verbose. No disagreement there. But so is Smalltalk. Your argument is basically whataboutism. My point is that Kotlin and Swift both solve Smalltalk's mistakes elegantly by making the parameter name optional. Use it if you have to, but omit it otherwise. And as it turns out, most of the time, you don't need to mention the name at all.
  - igouy 5y ago
    Yes Smalltalk is verbose by design.
    - hota_mazi 5y ago
      Why would anyone think that a verbose language is a good idea? Explicit? Sure. But verbose? There's no good reason for that, except that when Smalltalk was designed, we thought it was a good idea. We know better today.
      - goatlover 5y ago
        It wasn't too long ago, some people were defending Objective C's verbose naming schemes. "We know better today" sounds more like a fashion statement than an objective one. Opinions on coding styles tend to change with the languages that become popular. Granted, I do prefer explicit short over verbose.
      - scroot 5y ago
        > Why would anyone think that a verbose language is a good idea? What if you are a "sometimes" programmer -- you write some code, then come back to it months later. In many ways this was the intent behind the development of early personal computing. Verbosity is an advantage in these cases because in theory it becomes easier to discern what is going on without having to be immersed in the language, frameworks, and environment all the time.
        hota_mazi 5y ago
        This is not an argument in favor of verbosity, it's an argument in favor of static types and type inference. Keep the verbosity to a minimum while making the code easier to read, understand, and maintain.
        igouy 5y ago
        They said “without having to be immersed in”.
      - igouy 5y ago
        We sometimes think we know better. There is not an objective universal boundary between explicit and verbose. Some readers will need more, some can guess correctly with less.

overgard 5y ago

I think you have to separate out verbosity that adds clarity vs verbosity as ceremony. For instance, seeing "public static void" all over the place in java is irritating. On the other hand, if I'm doing a code review and I can't do a quick "jump to definition", I'm much happier reading code like: t rotateAround: v by: 90 degrees toRadian. Vs. t.rotate(v, 3.14/2) Sure the former is slightly more verbose (not by much though), but it tells me so much more and I don't need to look anything up. Also even though it's longer, none of it is fluff or ceremonial.

hota_mazi 5y ago
You are trying to excuse Smalltalk's excessive verbosity by pointing out Java's excessive verbosity. Yes, Java is excessively verbose. No disagreement there. But so is Smalltalk. Your argument is basically whataboutism. My point is that Kotlin and Swift both solve Smalltalk's mistakes elegantly by making the parameter name optional. Use it if you have to, but omit it otherwise. And as it turns out, most of the time, you don't need to mention the name at all.
- igouy 5y ago
  Yes Smalltalk is verbose by design.
  - hota_mazi 5y ago
    Why would anyone think that a verbose language is a good idea? Explicit? Sure. But verbose? There's no good reason for that, except that when Smalltalk was designed, we thought it was a good idea. We know better today.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      It wasn't too long ago, some people were defending Objective C's verbose naming schemes. "We know better today" sounds more like a fashion statement than an objective one. Opinions on coding styles tend to change with the languages that become popular. Granted, I do prefer explicit short over verbose.
    - scroot 5y ago
      > Why would anyone think that a verbose language is a good idea? What if you are a "sometimes" programmer -- you write some code, then come back to it months later. In many ways this was the intent behind the development of early personal computing. Verbosity is an advantage in these cases because in theory it becomes easier to discern what is going on without having to be immersed in the language, frameworks, and environment all the time.
      - hota_mazi 5y ago
        This is not an argument in favor of verbosity, it's an argument in favor of static types and type inference. Keep the verbosity to a minimum while making the code easier to read, understand, and maintain.
        igouy 5y ago
        They said “without having to be immersed in”.
    - igouy 5y ago
      We sometimes think we know better. There is not an objective universal boundary between explicit and verbose. Some readers will need more, some can guess correctly with less.