3 ms·

Syntax is not as important at all. Semantics is important. If you think about a piece of code you should have AST's in your mind anyway -- not strings of char

by peerst 15y ago

Syntax is not as important at all. Semantics is important. If you think about a piece of code you should have AST's in your mind anyway -- not strings of characters.

davidw 15y ago
Disagree completely: the language is there to make programming the computer easier for me, the human. If I have to parse it in my head, it has failed at that, at least for 'everyday use'. In particular, one place where Erlang gets in your way is if you swap two lines of code, there's a good chance you'll have to check the "ant turd token" at the end of the line, and change it. It's certainly not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is an annoyance.
- tlack 15y ago
  Honest question: do you find yourself really thinking about a languages syntax after you've spent 40-50 hours coding in it? To me it kind of fades into the background, becomes hard wired in my brain. (I'm not suggesting I'm an awesome coder or anything of course)
  - sausagefeet 15y ago
    In C++, yes.
  - davidw 15y ago
    Mostly, yes, but the line endings in Erlang fail the "don't make me think" test. They make you stop and look and make sure everything is in the right place. It's not that big a deal, and the language has lots of other great qualities, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it, but it's not fair to say it's not irritating.
signa11 15y ago
> Syntax is not as important at all. syntax is a language's UI, thoughtful, clean and consistent design matters...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
waffle_ss 15y ago
Well according to the Elixir docs it does make a bit of difference in terms of homoiconicity[0] (that famous Lisp property of code=data, data=code), which makes meta-programming easier. Also, would you rather code brainfuck or C using pointers (both being semantically identical)? ;) [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconic

by peerst 15y ago

Syntax is not as important at all. Semantics is important. If you think about a piece of code you should have AST's in your mind anyway -- not strings of characters.

davidw 15y ago

Disagree completely: the language is there to make programming the computer easier for me, the human. If I have to parse it in my head, it has failed at that, at least for 'everyday use'. In particular, one place where Erlang gets in your way is if you swap two lines of code, there's a good chance you'll have to check the "ant turd token" at the end of the line, and change it. It's certainly not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is an annoyance.

tlack 15y ago
Honest question: do you find yourself really thinking about a languages syntax after you've spent 40-50 hours coding in it? To me it kind of fades into the background, becomes hard wired in my brain. (I'm not suggesting I'm an awesome coder or anything of course)
- sausagefeet 15y ago
  In C++, yes.
- davidw 15y ago
  Mostly, yes, but the line endings in Erlang fail the "don't make me think" test. They make you stop and look and make sure everything is in the right place. It's not that big a deal, and the language has lots of other great qualities, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it, but it's not fair to say it's not irritating.

signa11 15y ago

> Syntax is not as important at all. syntax is a language's UI, thoughtful, clean and consistent design matters...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

waffle_ss 15y ago

Well according to the Elixir docs it does make a bit of difference in terms of homoiconicity[0] (that famous Lisp property of code=data, data=code), which makes meta-programming easier. Also, would you rather code brainfuck or C using pointers (both being semantically identical)? ;) [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconic