4 ms·

Brainfuck is harder to read not because of the syntax, but because it describes very low level semantics. Actually, it's not even harder to read - it's harder t

Brainfuck is harder to read not because of the syntax, but because it describes very low level semantics. Actually, it's not even harder to read - it's harder to comprehend. You're conflating comprehensibility with readability - they're not the same. There's a reason why people get tested for "reading comprehension" and not just "reading". In other news, I now know that you have your own idea about how programming languages should be. Good for you. That idea is not grounded in any research, because there is no research available, but you're welcome to have it, and when you write your own language you're welcome to stick to it. Logical conclusion of your last statement is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inform#Example_game_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inform#Example_game_2 I'll leave you to think about why it's not the most popular programming language on the planet. I'd say more, but I don't want to inconvenience Daniel any more than I already have the previous time, so let's just strongly agree to strongly disagree.

stephc_int13 4y ago
Easy to comprehend, easy to read, alright, in this context I think they are close enough to avoid wasting time on semantics. I have some ideas about programming languages but I think that in this field less is more, in an ideal world we should have only a handful of programming languages, to avoid the huge waste of resources.
hbrn 4y ago
> You're conflating comprehensibility with readability - they're not the same. There's a reason why people get tested for "reading comprehension" and not just "reading". "Reading comprehension" is not the same as "reading" only for natural languages, because we can "read" words by transforming them into sounds. In the context of programming, reading and comprehending are synonyms. Nobody cares if you can "vocalize" the code without comprehending it.
- klibertp 4y ago
  Maybe nobody cares, but visually identifying a token and comprehending its meaning are still distinct steps. What I'm trying to say is that visual identification - the thing that syntax is responsible for - is the easy part, and the latter is so much harder that the former almost doesn't count. It's not that I think syntax doesn't matter at all. It does, in some context it matters a lot - just not because of readability. And most definitely not because it looks pretty or ugly.

stephc_int13 4y ago

Easy to comprehend, easy to read, alright, in this context I think they are close enough to avoid wasting time on semantics. I have some ideas about programming languages but I think that in this field less is more, in an ideal world we should have only a handful of programming languages, to avoid the huge waste of resources.

hbrn 4y ago

> You're conflating comprehensibility with readability - they're not the same. There's a reason why people get tested for "reading comprehension" and not just "reading". "Reading comprehension" is not the same as "reading" only for natural languages, because we can "read" words by transforming them into sounds. In the context of programming, reading and comprehending are synonyms. Nobody cares if you can "vocalize" the code without comprehending it.

klibertp 4y ago
Maybe nobody cares, but visually identifying a token and comprehending its meaning are still distinct steps. What I'm trying to say is that visual identification - the thing that syntax is responsible for - is the easy part, and the latter is so much harder that the former almost doesn't count. It's not that I think syntax doesn't matter at all. It does, in some context it matters a lot - just not because of readability. And most definitely not because it looks pretty or ugly.