> Personally, I do not find that long names, brackets and general verbosity helps _me_ with "readability". The less concise it looks the less likely I am to rea

> Personally, I do not find that long names, brackets and general verbosity helps _me_ with "readability". The less concise it looks the less likely I am to read it. And if there is too much to read, I will definitely not read it. in some sense it is a "thesaurus vs ancient egyptian" argument I can totally understand that it would be infinitely nicer to build Stargate and go fight Goa'uld or inherit knowldge of the galaxy-spanning Asgard - but it's the events of "Yes, Minister" that actually do happen in our, real, world > As it happens, I find terse languages, and "code golf", as more approachable and thus readbale. It is lower volume, more concise and compact. Generally, I can read all of it. I use an ASCII-based array language that uses brackets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_(programming_language) "A case of MUMPS" (https://thedailywtf.com/articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS https://thedailywtf.com/articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS) is on The Daily WTF. "WTF" is exactly the default behaviour of people encountering these codegolf-ed langs > The question I have is why anyone who prefers popular verbose languages would care about the discussion of unpopular array languages on HN. Why even bother to comment and complain. you're the seller, I'm the buyer array enthusiasts advertise their product, listing advantages - we reply with "my problems with it are this, this and this. How can you fix it?". Yes I'm interested. No, I don't agree that my concerns are empty. > (Also wondering if commenter meant braces not brackets.) technically, I meant parenthesis. But nowadays, and especially in programming world, all 3 are synonyms and you just add [curly/round/square] in front brackets are just easiest of the 3 for me to recall