5 ms·

Why? I'm used to \ meaning lambda. I understand you aren't, and that's fine. But it's just your weird opinion determined by what programming languages you've le

by tasuki 2y ago

Why? I'm used to \ meaning lambda. I understand you aren't, and that's fine. But it's just your weird opinion determined by what programming languages you've learned. Ultimately, it's just syntax and not so important. Semantics are important.

IshKebab 2y ago
> Why? I'm used to \ meaning lambda. 1. I know what lambda calculus is, and I didn't even make the connection between \ and lambda. It's pretty tenuous. 2. Most programmers do not know what lambda calculus is. This is supposed to be a friendly language, not an obscure academic one. 3. It's not even the same lambda as in lambda calculus, e.g. it takes multiple arguments. 4. Lambda was a reasonable choice in lambda calculus since it's a very "mathsy" language, and it's pretty much the only symbol in the language. It's a pretty awful choice for a practical programming language though - there's a reason 99% of languages use something like `fn` or `fun` or `function` or `def` instead of lambda to define top-level functions. I'm not a huge fan of `|foo|` either to be honest - I don't see why you can't simply use the same syntax for anonymous and named functions - but it is at least a little better. If it were up to me I'd go with something like fn double(a: list[int]) -> list[int] { a.map(fn(i) { i * 2 }) } Same syntax; just allow omitting the name and inferring the types. I can't recall any languages that do that though so maybe there's some tricky reason it can't work?
- Hasnep 2y ago
  Roc does use the same syntax for anonymous and named functions, both before and after the recent syntax changes.
- trescenzi 2y ago
  Right now I’m in between liking Gleam or Roc for a hobby functional language. The syntax you wrote is Gleam[1], well aside from it being List(). It’s very approachable, very consistent and that’s a core goal. Roc was appealing because it was slightly more distinct and more unique. Plus it was more focused on speed. I appreciate them wanting to become more approachable. The new syntax seems less approachable to me because it’s now a half step between approachable Haskell and what feels like a combination of Ruby and Python. [1]: https://gleam.run/ https://gleam.run/
- pmarreck 2y ago
  > Most programmers do not know what lambda calculus is I would frankly be shocked if a 4 year syllabus in CS these days just skipped any mention of Alonzo Church, especially considering that it's fundamental to functional programming and theoretical computer science... Maybe it's not taught in "CS" programs that are actually just "practical software engineering" bootcamps with extra steps. The real nerds know about lambdas. They're even literally called that in Ruby (and possibly other languages).
  - akkad33 2y ago
    There can't be a more democratized language than Python and in Python closures are defined literally using lambda keyword
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      I guarantee that 99% of Python programmers just think that's a weird way of saying an anonymous function. Hell I used lambda functions in C++ for years without knowing what lambda calculus is. And C++ doesn't even use `lambda`.
      - akkad33 2y ago
        Sure, but that also means this kind of syntax does not alienate people just because they don't know what lambda calculus is. And they will appreciate it even more when one day they get curious and look up why it is called a lambda
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Brace yourself... most programmers don't have a CS degree. Yes really.
    - anacrolix 2y ago
      It cannot be
    - pjmlp 2y ago
- akkad33 2y ago
  I think because a closure is not a function as a closure can capture its environment, in a way that functions can't, so using the same syntax for closures and functions can be misleading (even though languages like JS do it)
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    I dunno, I could say that functions do capture their environment (global variables are captured by reference). I don't really see how it would be misleading.

by tasuki 2y ago

IshKebab 2y ago

> Why? I'm used to \ meaning lambda. 1. I know what lambda calculus is, and I didn't even make the connection between \ and lambda. It's pretty tenuous. 2. Most programmers do not know what lambda calculus is. This is supposed to be a friendly language, not an obscure academic one. 3. It's not even the same lambda as in lambda calculus, e.g. it takes multiple arguments. 4. Lambda was a reasonable choice in lambda calculus since it's a very "mathsy" language, and it's pretty much the only symbol in the language. It's a pretty awful choice for a practical programming language though - there's a reason 99% of languages use something like `fn` or `fun` or `function` or `def` instead of lambda to define top-level functions. I'm not a huge fan of `|foo|` either to be honest - I don't see why you can't simply use the same syntax for anonymous and named functions - but it is at least a little better. If it were up to me I'd go with something like fn double(a: list[int]) -> list[int] { a.map(fn(i) { i * 2 }) } Same syntax; just allow omitting the name and inferring the types. I can't recall any languages that do that though so maybe there's some tricky reason it can't work?

Hasnep 2y ago
Roc does use the same syntax for anonymous and named functions, both before and after the recent syntax changes.
trescenzi 2y ago
Right now I’m in between liking Gleam or Roc for a hobby functional language. The syntax you wrote is Gleam[1], well aside from it being List(). It’s very approachable, very consistent and that’s a core goal. Roc was appealing because it was slightly more distinct and more unique. Plus it was more focused on speed. I appreciate them wanting to become more approachable. The new syntax seems less approachable to me because it’s now a half step between approachable Haskell and what feels like a combination of Ruby and Python. [1]: https://gleam.run/ https://gleam.run/
pmarreck 2y ago
> Most programmers do not know what lambda calculus is I would frankly be shocked if a 4 year syllabus in CS these days just skipped any mention of Alonzo Church, especially considering that it's fundamental to functional programming and theoretical computer science... Maybe it's not taught in "CS" programs that are actually just "practical software engineering" bootcamps with extra steps. The real nerds know about lambdas. They're even literally called that in Ruby (and possibly other languages).
- akkad33 2y ago
  There can't be a more democratized language than Python and in Python closures are defined literally using lambda keyword
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    I guarantee that 99% of Python programmers just think that's a weird way of saying an anonymous function. Hell I used lambda functions in C++ for years without knowing what lambda calculus is. And C++ doesn't even use `lambda`.
    - akkad33 2y ago
      Sure, but that also means this kind of syntax does not alienate people just because they don't know what lambda calculus is. And they will appreciate it even more when one day they get curious and look up why it is called a lambda
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Brace yourself... most programmers don't have a CS degree. Yes really.
  - anacrolix 2y ago
    It cannot be
  - pjmlp 2y ago
akkad33 2y ago
I think because a closure is not a function as a closure can capture its environment, in a way that functions can't, so using the same syntax for closures and functions can be misleading (even though languages like JS do it)
- IshKebab 2y ago
  I dunno, I could say that functions do capture their environment (global variables are captured by reference). I don't really see how it would be misleading.