3 ms·
> The japanese standard library offers a bunch of chainable functions to add meaning to your primitive types. English and French work in the same way. However
by raverbashing 4y ago
> The japanese standard library offers a bunch of chainable functions to add meaning to your primitive types.
English and French work in the same way.
However roles are usually determined by word order. But in essence it's the same thing as obj.do_stuff(), 'obj' is the thing that do_stuff.
- Conan_Kudo 4y agoEnglish passive voice construction is inverted similar to Japanese. It's just OVS vs SVO. I've never really thought of programming languages in passive voice before, but it explains why I've increasingly written and spoken in passive voice structure even though I know it's "wrong" to do so.
- kibwen 4y agoI wouldn't say that programming is expressed as OVS. Function calls are VSO, e.g. `push(array, element)`. Method calls are SVO, `array.push(element)`. I speculate that this is why method-style dot-notation has become so dominant over the past few decades, because of its natural familiarity to English speakers as compared to the functional VSO style.
- tmtvl 4y agoProgramming doesn't have a definite order, it depends on language. Some examples: movq %rax, %rbx add rbx, rax (cons a b) a := b; b 1 a + !
- raverbashing 4y agoIt's not a "programming style" in this case, assembly is the only "computer language" that doesn't fit the Chomsky hierarchy paradigm, because it is too simple
- Liquid_Fire 4y ago> English passive voice construction is inverted similar to Japanese. It's just OVS vs SVO. Maybe I misunderstood you, but Japanese is neither of those - it's usually SOV, although could be OSV (and you can omit the subject or object sometimes).