6 ms·

> The syntax is the least interesting thing about the language, and hello-world examples demonstrate almost none of the syntax. I agree for the hello world but

> The syntax is the least interesting thing about the language, and hello-world examples demonstrate almost none of the syntax. I agree for the hello world but I disagree with the syntax. It is the first thing you see and the characteristic you can never escape. It is like the layout and typesetting of a text: the substance is of course more important, but it is still very important. I personally find much more readable languages that have a concise-but-not-too-much syntax, that use not too many special characters, and that is read like fortran/pascal/c/etc (I don't how to define it, but for example lisp is different)

jibal 1y ago
For Pony in particular, the syntax is not important ... it's simply not the point of the language.
- SiempreViernes 1y ago
  Having looked at some source examples, I'm pretty sure Pony has syntax errors just like every other parsed language.
  - jibal 1y ago
    We must not be communicating clearly, because that doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with what I wrote. I thought it was clear that the discussion was about the syntactic specifics of programming languages. I certainly wasn't claiming that Pony doesn't have a syntax, or that it's not important to use the correct syntax to write a Pony program.
    - gosub100 1y ago
      People like to make themselves sound smart and important by finding the most trivial and low effort ways to discount and invalidate your point, instead of expending effort to respond to a more substantial argument that I could easily read from what you wrote. It's just the nature of online forums I think. It's easy (but incorrect) to conclude this place is full of jerks, because sometimes jerks are more likely to respond at all, and you don't get a baseline of how many people read your message but didn't reply at all.
      - jibal 1y ago
        Yes, thank you. I found the amount of bad faith in the responses is really rather shocking, but you have a good point about self-selection.
        Tainnor 1y ago
        I honestly think there's a certain number of people whose insecurities get triggered when they encounter something that they don't immediately understand and instead of concluding that it's not for them or that they lack prerequisite knowledge, they get angry and dismissive.
        gosub100 1y ago
        I even regret using the word "jerks". Even better would be that people get entranced in a tactical mindset of "how do I most efficiently dismantle and invalidate this input?" Which certainly sounds like a jerk, but in reality they aren't even "considering the human" (can't remember which website used that in their guidelines, maybe early reddit?) in the first place. That's all just my pet theory and speculation.
- quotemstr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - poulpy123 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    This is textbook no true scotsman fallacy, you're aware, right?
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      And? Doesn't mean it's not true. It just means you can't use it to win an argument against a nerd.
      - perching_aix 1y ago
        > Doesn't mean it's not true. True, it just means that it's idiotic, rather.
        fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        oof I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy, let me just consult the manual here...
        perching_aix 1y ago
        Keep us updated.
        jibal 1y ago
        Speaking of fallacies, it's complete nonsense (not the only example of it from that source) to say that the comment in question was a True Scotsman Fallacy (or any other kind of fallacy). Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is very different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
- poulpy123 1y ago
  If the syntax is not important, that would mean coding in whitespace or malboge would be as easy as coding in python
  - jibal 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jeltz 1y ago
      Then make your arguments instead of making us try to read your mind. Why is Pony special?
      - arethuza 1y ago
        See: https://www.ponylang.io/discover/why-pony/ https://www.ponylang.io/discover/why-pony/ I don't think that Pony is claiming to be novel in the area of syntax?
        pseudocomposer 1y ago
        If “reference capabilities” are the important thing about Pony, they should have a max 100-200 LoC example on the front page that uses them. As far as I can tell reading here, “reference capabilities” don’t do anything that properly-used C semaphores haven’t done for near half a century. Or that their abstraction of that isn’t nicer to use than, say, Elixir’s, or better than Rust’s borrow checker for managing mutability. A code example could convince me otherwise. Show us code that uses “reference capabilities” to do something. This “the syntax doesn’t matter” talk just comes off as bullshit to devs wanting to actually use a language. It would be better to commit to a syntax, post some damn examples on the site, and let devs get used to “reference capabilities.” If the syntax needs revising, just do that in Pony v2. If you want devs to be enthusiastic about your language, make it easy for them to understand why they should be enthusiastic. That means code, front and center, first thing.
        1y ago
zem 1y ago
the way i like to put it is that the syntax is the user interface of the language. if your user interface sucks, your product will not be pleasant to use, no matter how capable it is.

jibal 1y ago

For Pony in particular, the syntax is not important ... it's simply not the point of the language.

SiempreViernes 1y ago
Having looked at some source examples, I'm pretty sure Pony has syntax errors just like every other parsed language.
- jibal 1y ago
  We must not be communicating clearly, because that doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with what I wrote. I thought it was clear that the discussion was about the syntactic specifics of programming languages. I certainly wasn't claiming that Pony doesn't have a syntax, or that it's not important to use the correct syntax to write a Pony program.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    People like to make themselves sound smart and important by finding the most trivial and low effort ways to discount and invalidate your point, instead of expending effort to respond to a more substantial argument that I could easily read from what you wrote. It's just the nature of online forums I think. It's easy (but incorrect) to conclude this place is full of jerks, because sometimes jerks are more likely to respond at all, and you don't get a baseline of how many people read your message but didn't reply at all.
    - jibal 1y ago
      Yes, thank you. I found the amount of bad faith in the responses is really rather shocking, but you have a good point about self-selection.
      - Tainnor 1y ago
        I honestly think there's a certain number of people whose insecurities get triggered when they encounter something that they don't immediately understand and instead of concluding that it's not for them or that they lack prerequisite knowledge, they get angry and dismissive.
      - gosub100 1y ago
        I even regret using the word "jerks". Even better would be that people get entranced in a tactical mindset of "how do I most efficiently dismantle and invalidate this input?" Which certainly sounds like a jerk, but in reality they aren't even "considering the human" (can't remember which website used that in their guidelines, maybe early reddit?) in the first place. That's all just my pet theory and speculation.
quotemstr 1y ago
[flagged]
- poulpy123 1y ago
  [flagged]
- perching_aix 1y ago
  This is textbook no true scotsman fallacy, you're aware, right?
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    And? Doesn't mean it's not true. It just means you can't use it to win an argument against a nerd.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      > Doesn't mean it's not true. True, it just means that it's idiotic, rather.
      - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        oof I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy, let me just consult the manual here...
        perching_aix 1y ago
        Keep us updated.
        jibal 1y ago
        Speaking of fallacies, it's complete nonsense (not the only example of it from that source) to say that the comment in question was a True Scotsman Fallacy (or any other kind of fallacy). Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is very different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
poulpy123 1y ago
If the syntax is not important, that would mean coding in whitespace or malboge would be as easy as coding in python
- jibal 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jeltz 1y ago
    Then make your arguments instead of making us try to read your mind. Why is Pony special?
    - arethuza 1y ago
      See: https://www.ponylang.io/discover/why-pony/ https://www.ponylang.io/discover/why-pony/ I don't think that Pony is claiming to be novel in the area of syntax?
      - pseudocomposer 1y ago
        If “reference capabilities” are the important thing about Pony, they should have a max 100-200 LoC example on the front page that uses them. As far as I can tell reading here, “reference capabilities” don’t do anything that properly-used C semaphores haven’t done for near half a century. Or that their abstraction of that isn’t nicer to use than, say, Elixir’s, or better than Rust’s borrow checker for managing mutability. A code example could convince me otherwise. Show us code that uses “reference capabilities” to do something. This “the syntax doesn’t matter” talk just comes off as bullshit to devs wanting to actually use a language. It would be better to commit to a syntax, post some damn examples on the site, and let devs get used to “reference capabilities.” If the syntax needs revising, just do that in Pony v2. If you want devs to be enthusiastic about your language, make it easy for them to understand why they should be enthusiastic. That means code, front and center, first thing.
        1y ago

zem 1y ago

the way i like to put it is that the syntax is the user interface of the language. if your user interface sucks, your product will not be pleasant to use, no matter how capable it is.