3 ms·

So make sure you introduce this in your company; become the subject expert in it, invite everyone to very cool sessions demonstrating how cool it is, and secure

by keyle 2y ago

So make sure you introduce this in your company; become the subject expert in it, invite everyone to very cool sessions demonstrating how cool it is, and secure your job until the next rewrite! Looking at the examples, 1/5th of it looked neat, which probably would be best to submit a proposal for |> to the typescript committee rather than write another alienation. This is a solution looking for a problem to solve. It introduces an alternative and does so as a superset; which is not only dangerous to existing code bases, but also silly.

scubbo 2y ago
> It introduces an alternative and does so as a superset; which is not only dangerous to existing code bases... How so?
- keyle 2y ago
  An alternative way to do something in a code base, for no other reason than style, is a recipe for technical debt. It builds up a larger cognitive load on the developers navigating and working the code base and induces more chances of bugs via half-refactors, or half-considerations. As for the superset comment, I meant that if you introduce a completely different language, you probably have a valid reason; e.g. it does something different. Adding to an existing language with a superset without any need for it is also dangerous. It's not like it's a DSL at a higher level helping people get repetitive or scriptable things done faster. It's only an alternative, leading people down rabbit hole and second guessing with a lot more to remember.
  - scubbo 2y ago
    I see. I misinterpreted your meaning of the word "existing" - I thought you were implying that, by virtue of the introduction of the alternative, any existing codebases would _immediately and instantly_ be worsened, whereas it seems that you're saying that continued (future) development _on_ existing codebases would deteriorate due to those alternatives. That's a fair criticism! I don't fall on the same point in the "alternatives provide better-focused tools <-> alternatives create cognitive load" spectrum as you do, but I see your point. > It's not like it's a DSL at a higher level helping people get repetitive or scriptable things done faster. I mean, I have to disagree with you there, because several of the comparisons on the main site page show >50% line-count reduction, and many of those that don't have (subjectivity-alert!) representations that more-clearly match my mental model of how the code works - so not only would I be executing fewer keystrokes to encode my idea (not the main bottleneck, but not irrelevant!), but also I'd be carrying out fewer mental translations to get from idea to code.

by keyle 2y ago

scubbo 2y ago

> It introduces an alternative and does so as a superset; which is not only dangerous to existing code bases... How so?

keyle 2y ago
An alternative way to do something in a code base, for no other reason than style, is a recipe for technical debt. It builds up a larger cognitive load on the developers navigating and working the code base and induces more chances of bugs via half-refactors, or half-considerations. As for the superset comment, I meant that if you introduce a completely different language, you probably have a valid reason; e.g. it does something different. Adding to an existing language with a superset without any need for it is also dangerous. It's not like it's a DSL at a higher level helping people get repetitive or scriptable things done faster. It's only an alternative, leading people down rabbit hole and second guessing with a lot more to remember.
- scubbo 2y ago
  I see. I misinterpreted your meaning of the word "existing" - I thought you were implying that, by virtue of the introduction of the alternative, any existing codebases would _immediately and instantly_ be worsened, whereas it seems that you're saying that continued (future) development _on_ existing codebases would deteriorate due to those alternatives. That's a fair criticism! I don't fall on the same point in the "alternatives provide better-focused tools <-> alternatives create cognitive load" spectrum as you do, but I see your point. > It's not like it's a DSL at a higher level helping people get repetitive or scriptable things done faster. I mean, I have to disagree with you there, because several of the comparisons on the main site page show >50% line-count reduction, and many of those that don't have (subjectivity-alert!) representations that more-clearly match my mental model of how the code works - so not only would I be executing fewer keystrokes to encode my idea (not the main bottleneck, but not irrelevant!), but also I'd be carrying out fewer mental translations to get from idea to code.