People should stick to the specifications... That said, that makes me think of perl5. I though the perl5 coders were doing some kind of sick competition: who i

People should stick to the specifications... That said, that makes me think of perl5. I though the perl5 coders were doing some kind of sick competition: who is going to use the most implicit code, namely to read the code you would need a complete/perfect/permanent understanding of the full perl5 syntax parser to understand what some code is actually doing. I hate perl5 for that, but ultra complex syntax computer language like c++ and similar (java, rust, etc), are worse. In advanced OOP, you have no idea of what's going on if you don't embrace the full OOP model of a complex program, not to mention it does exponentially increase the syntax complexity, which is a liability in order to get a sane spectrum of alternative "real-life" compilers since those become insane to implement correctly. If implicit there is in a computer language, it must be very little and very simple, but should be avoided as much as possible. Does it mean more verbose code, well, most of the time yes, and this is usually much better on the long run. For instance in C, I try to avoid complex expression (often I fail, because I am too used to some operators like '++' '--'), many operators should not be around, not pertinent enough (like a ? b : c) only increasing compiler complexity.