5 ms·

Most programming languages ought not to be optimized for a non-programmer to read, but rather for someone who writes code to read. There's a lot of options for

Most programming languages ought not to be optimized for a non-programmer to read, but rather for someone who writes code to read. There's a lot of options for a language to deal with a statement like this. It could be a syntax error, a compile or lint warning, it could work by doing order of operations and comparing the boolean from one compare with the third element, or it could work in the way you described. I'd prefer languages that I work with to chose earlier options from that list. In most languages this sort of statement is usually a bug, and deserves explicit parenthesis to clarify the order of operations. I really don't want to have to pull out an operator precedence chart in order to read your code, much less have to look up some esoterica about this specific language.

throwaway313373 2y ago
"someone who writes code" is very vague. For someone who writes code primarily in Python this behavior is less surprising than the rest that you described.
- ball_of_lint 2y ago
  Intentionally so. I've worked primarily in Python for the last two years and I'd still have to look at a reference to be certain of what exactly this code does. And would probably rewrite it to the expanded, parenthesized form unless the company linter insisted.
atoav 2y ago
I'd argue that many programming languages are not optimized for "people who read code" but they are optimized for programs who read code (compilers, interpreters) and programmers can stockholm-syndrome themselves into believing that it is targeted at them.
- James_K 2y ago
  Code optimised for an interpreter is often also optimised for the programmer, whose primary job is interpreting code. What makes natural language intuitive is that it doesn't have to be precise. You can assume language does what it is intended to do. A programmer, by contrast, must know exactly what the program does. You cannot assume it does what you want it to do because the computer doesn't know what you want it to do. A language cannot be made less precise by the addition of new rules; it is only made more complicated as there is more to remember. In this example, the person writing the ternary expression had to learn that it exists. If it didn't exist, there would have been less learning to do. Perl is the limit of this process – a language with many rules to appear natural and human-like that it's almost impossible to actually read. Each rule of a language is a cognitive burden. It can only justify itself if the thing it replaces is a greater burden.
the5avage 2y ago
> I really don't want to have to pull out an operator precedence chart in order to read your code Hard disagree here. I write code for people who can read the language. This includes operator precedence.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  The more complex an expression grows, the less well it works to rely on operator precedence to indicate structure to the reader. Additionally, I think assuming the reader is aware of every. nuance of the language is an extremely bad idea unless you are and will always be the only developer. If you are doing anything weird or tricky or rare, I'd highly recommend linking the documentation or providing an explanation.
- nmeofthestate 2y ago
  >I write code for people who can read the language Programming languages often have syntax that's acknowledged as a source of confusion and bugs and better avoided. The line is not hard and fast, but I write C++ and there's "C++", and then there's "the C++ subset that you should use" (I probably couldn't write C++ code without tools slapping me for using the wrong parts). Operator precedence is debatable but our tools force the use of parentheses to disambiguate.
  - stavros 2y ago
    This is true, and, in this case, "confusion avoided" and "what Python does" coincide. The "double equals doing the right thing" is only confusing if you're both unfamiliar with Python and familiar with language design, which is a very small set of people. People unfamiliar with programming will assume that "if a == b == c" is only true if all three things are the same, and people familiar with Python will know that that is, indeed, what it means.
dagw 2y ago
Most programming languages ought not to be optimized for a non-programmer to read Python 'won' mostly because non-programmers could look at it, more or less understand what was going on, and feel that this was something they probably could learn.

throwaway313373 2y ago

"someone who writes code" is very vague. For someone who writes code primarily in Python this behavior is less surprising than the rest that you described.

ball_of_lint 2y ago
Intentionally so. I've worked primarily in Python for the last two years and I'd still have to look at a reference to be certain of what exactly this code does. And would probably rewrite it to the expanded, parenthesized form unless the company linter insisted.

atoav 2y ago

I'd argue that many programming languages are not optimized for "people who read code" but they are optimized for programs who read code (compilers, interpreters) and programmers can stockholm-syndrome themselves into believing that it is targeted at them.

James_K 2y ago
Code optimised for an interpreter is often also optimised for the programmer, whose primary job is interpreting code. What makes natural language intuitive is that it doesn't have to be precise. You can assume language does what it is intended to do. A programmer, by contrast, must know exactly what the program does. You cannot assume it does what you want it to do because the computer doesn't know what you want it to do. A language cannot be made less precise by the addition of new rules; it is only made more complicated as there is more to remember. In this example, the person writing the ternary expression had to learn that it exists. If it didn't exist, there would have been less learning to do. Perl is the limit of this process – a language with many rules to appear natural and human-like that it's almost impossible to actually read. Each rule of a language is a cognitive burden. It can only justify itself if the thing it replaces is a greater burden.

the5avage 2y ago

> I really don't want to have to pull out an operator precedence chart in order to read your code Hard disagree here. I write code for people who can read the language. This includes operator precedence.

shkkmo 2y ago
The more complex an expression grows, the less well it works to rely on operator precedence to indicate structure to the reader. Additionally, I think assuming the reader is aware of every. nuance of the language is an extremely bad idea unless you are and will always be the only developer. If you are doing anything weird or tricky or rare, I'd highly recommend linking the documentation or providing an explanation.
nmeofthestate 2y ago
>I write code for people who can read the language Programming languages often have syntax that's acknowledged as a source of confusion and bugs and better avoided. The line is not hard and fast, but I write C++ and there's "C++", and then there's "the C++ subset that you should use" (I probably couldn't write C++ code without tools slapping me for using the wrong parts). Operator precedence is debatable but our tools force the use of parentheses to disambiguate.
- stavros 2y ago
  This is true, and, in this case, "confusion avoided" and "what Python does" coincide. The "double equals doing the right thing" is only confusing if you're both unfamiliar with Python and familiar with language design, which is a very small set of people. People unfamiliar with programming will assume that "if a == b == c" is only true if all three things are the same, and people familiar with Python will know that that is, indeed, what it means.

dagw 2y ago

Most programming languages ought not to be optimized for a non-programmer to read Python 'won' mostly because non-programmers could look at it, more or less understand what was going on, and feel that this was something they probably could learn.