3 ms·
Leaving aside the fact that you have at least 4 (EDIT: 5) mistakes in that code, I find it less readable than the Lisp equivalent. The brackets reinforce the st
by tmtvl 8mo ago
Leaving aside the fact that you have at least 4 (EDIT: 5) mistakes in that code, I find it less readable than the Lisp equivalent. The brackets reinforce the structure imposed by the indentation and help me keep track of order of execution. But that's how my brain works and that's why syntax is subjective.
- Joker_vD 8mo agoMy apologies, it should've been (if you insist on indentation) let a, b, c = 0, 1, 0 fb_start: writen(a) b +:= a a := b - a c +:= 1 if c < 100 do goto fb-start Would you care to elaborate about brackets helping with tracking the order of execution? I'm really curious about that part.
- kazinator 8mo agoTXR Lisp, with infix via ifx macro: (ifx (let ((a 0) (b 1) (c 0)) (tagbody fb-start (prinl a) (b += a) (a := b - a) (c += 1) (if (c < 100) (go fb-start)))))
- tmtvl 8mo agoWell, the P in PEMDAS stands for 'brackets'. The clearest example, even though it's rather uncommon: a := x ** y ** z (and that's hoping the language does the OOE for exponentiation arithmetically correctly) versus (setf a (expt x (expt y z))) It's a bit like how Reverse Polish Notation is superior to the infix notation we torture ourselves with (x + y * z or (x + y) * z versus x y z * + or x y + z *).
- Joker_vD 8mo agoBut that's just associativity, not the order of evaluation? E.g. in C# expressions are evaluated strictly left to right, so if it had operator **, the order of evaluation would've been: tmp1 := x, tmp2 := y, tmp3 := z, tmp4 := tmp2 ** tmp3, yield tmp1 ** tmp4 And, eh, I am not really that convinced that a b * c d * x y * z t * p q * + + sqrt + + is much less torturous than a * b + c * d + sqrt(x * y + z * t + p * q)