4 ms·
Funnily, nearby on the frontpage is The Python Paradox[1], an essay which contains: > At the mention of ugly source code, people will of course think of >
by interroboink 4y ago
Funnily, nearby on the frontpage is The Python Paradox[1], an essay which contains:
> At the mention of ugly source code, people will of course think of
> Perl. But the superficial ugliness of Perl is not the sort I mean. Real
> ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to build programs out
> of the wrong concepts. Perl may look like a cartoon character swearing,
> but there are cases where it surpasses Python conceptually.
I do think there's something to be said for the notion of "conceptually ugly" rather than "syntactically ugly", though the latter is what people tend to focus on. Perhaps we need a better word than "ugly," with its superficial connotations.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34541933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34541933
- nequo 4y agoA “conceptually beautiful” language would consist of orthogonal concepts, right? What would be good examples of such languages? Interestingly, Python’s aspiration to have only one (obvious) way to do things could be understood as an aspiration to achieve conceptual beauty.
- interroboink 4y agoI suppose there's also a distinction between "beautiful in implementation/concepts available" vs. "beautiful/pleasant to work with." Harping on Perl again, one could see its roots in natural language with sigils representing different kinds of "nouns", and ability to rearrange conditions to be more like spoken language ("do X if Y vs. if Y do X") as an aspiration towards "beautiful to work with." And of course the various notions of beauty can get in each others' way. But they're all a lot more fruitful to consider than a mere "yuck, too much punctuation."