4 ms·

I must confess I had to suppress my knee jerk urge to downvote. It almost feels like you're asking "what's the appeal of elegance?" "What's the appeal of Chess,

I must confess I had to suppress my knee jerk urge to downvote. It almost feels like you're asking "what's the appeal of elegance?" "What's the appeal of Chess, if you want complex gameplay just have complex rules." It almost feels alien that someone couldn't get it. Here's a simple but perhaps disappointing theory. Painting with a broad brush for a moment, there are primarily two sorts of thinkers: memorizers and logicians. The former have astounding recall, and consequently have no qualms about learning loads of vocabulary. They, for some reason I will never understand, actually delight in learning a foreign language. When they end up in the sciences, it is more often than not some form of biology where knowing all the assorted physiological systems and every cataloged failure mode and the symptoms thereof is of great benefit. The latter can't do any of that, but if you pause for half a second in the middle of a thought they will start trying to complete your sentence by suggesting words. When they find themselves in a foreign country, they figure out how to use the washing machine and vending machines and generally fend for themselves without any help despite not being able to read any of the labels. They might never learn the language, but they quickly figure out which characters mean "road", "park", "river" etc based on nothing more than the subway station names. When they go into the sciences, they tend to end up in math or physics. Newton only makes you memorize 3 things, and from there literally everything else follows if you think hard enough. So, for the logician type thinker, small languages are just deeply pleasing for the same reason Newtons laws and Chess are deeply pleasing. Those are the antithesis of learning a foreign language. Small coding languages let you know everything while learning as little as possible. The memorizer types must see the appeal of small language the same way I see the appeal of memorizing all the characters in the Chinese writing system. I see no appeal in learning all the characters in written Chinese. Why would anyone ever consider all those characters a sought after feature?

ok_dad 4y ago
> memorizing all the characters in the Chinese writing system Actually, there's a logic (a stroke order logic and also some common building blocks) to how to build the characters in Chinese (and other similar languages). So I would imagine the "logicians" might be OK with it :)
jayd16 4y ago
I feel like your take is simply too strictly bound to your personal preferences. Small is not the same as elegant. If it sad "Zig, the Elegant Language" that would be something else. Lace and watches are elegant but complex and intricate. A large language might be more consistent and well thought out than a smaller one. That, again, is a separate detail. And we're talking about the main selling point of the language. Not just 'oh and its pretty small too.' Of all the things to focus on, it would not be my priority for sure.
sound1 4y ago
> Small coding languages let you know everything while learning as little as possible. Very well put
- jayd16 4y ago
  But its just more library code to learn instead, isn't it?
avgcorrection 4y ago
What a lame Mars/Venus theory. Language designers never make complex features in order to have more to learn and catalogue. They are nakedly compromises which are supposed to make certain things easier, maybe even simpler in certain senses (for example simpler library code: more complex features like pattern matching can make for less spaghetti control flow). Then the retort might be “but they wittingly or unwittingly pursue the goal of complexity for its own sake!”, in which case that would just prove that you have stacked the deck in favor of the “logician” (who makes simple languages for simplicity’s sake—simple). Another problem is that some language designers are logicians by trade already. > So, for the logician type thinker, small languages are just deeply pleasing for the same reason Newtons laws and Chess are deeply pleasing. Chess has Opening Theory. I bet the Half-Delayed Swashbuckler Sicilian just comes naturally to the oh-so exalted logician. (Then the retort might be, oh I’m just talking about the game in the abstract, not the metagame. Well it is very important how a game is actually played and how a language is actually put to use.)
- chongli 4y ago
  There are plenty of people who love chess but hate opening theory. They look to variants such as chess960 to get their logician fix on. They also tend to love Go (the board game) and perhaps even Stratego (which has such a game tree that dwarfs the rest).
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    Chess was such a good example to use in this lame dichotomy that we are now pivoting to Bobby Fischer chess and completely different games.
    - chongli 4y ago
      It's not a lame dichotomy. There are loads of people who detest rote memorization and prefer to solve only the problem directly in front of them. Bobby Fischer himself invented his variant because he hated that aspect of the game. I, personally, empathize with this position as a university student who gets higher grades in pure math courses than in the "easier" applied versions due to the memorization aspect.

ok_dad 4y ago

> memorizing all the characters in the Chinese writing system Actually, there's a logic (a stroke order logic and also some common building blocks) to how to build the characters in Chinese (and other similar languages). So I would imagine the "logicians" might be OK with it :)

jayd16 4y ago

I feel like your take is simply too strictly bound to your personal preferences. Small is not the same as elegant. If it sad "Zig, the Elegant Language" that would be something else. Lace and watches are elegant but complex and intricate. A large language might be more consistent and well thought out than a smaller one. That, again, is a separate detail. And we're talking about the main selling point of the language. Not just 'oh and its pretty small too.' Of all the things to focus on, it would not be my priority for sure.

sound1 4y ago

> Small coding languages let you know everything while learning as little as possible. Very well put

jayd16 4y ago
But its just more library code to learn instead, isn't it?

avgcorrection 4y ago

What a lame Mars/Venus theory. Language designers never make complex features in order to have more to learn and catalogue. They are nakedly compromises which are supposed to make certain things easier, maybe even simpler in certain senses (for example simpler library code: more complex features like pattern matching can make for less spaghetti control flow). Then the retort might be “but they wittingly or unwittingly pursue the goal of complexity for its own sake!”, in which case that would just prove that you have stacked the deck in favor of the “logician” (who makes simple languages for simplicity’s sake—simple). Another problem is that some language designers are logicians by trade already. > So, for the logician type thinker, small languages are just deeply pleasing for the same reason Newtons laws and Chess are deeply pleasing. Chess has Opening Theory. I bet the Half-Delayed Swashbuckler Sicilian just comes naturally to the oh-so exalted logician. (Then the retort might be, oh I’m just talking about the game in the abstract, not the metagame. Well it is very important how a game is actually played and how a language is actually put to use.)

chongli 4y ago
There are plenty of people who love chess but hate opening theory. They look to variants such as chess960 to get their logician fix on. They also tend to love Go (the board game) and perhaps even Stratego (which has such a game tree that dwarfs the rest).
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  Chess was such a good example to use in this lame dichotomy that we are now pivoting to Bobby Fischer chess and completely different games.
  - chongli 4y ago
    It's not a lame dichotomy. There are loads of people who detest rote memorization and prefer to solve only the problem directly in front of them. Bobby Fischer himself invented his variant because he hated that aspect of the game. I, personally, empathize with this position as a university student who gets higher grades in pure math courses than in the "easier" applied versions due to the memorization aspect.