3 ms·
If you spend your day typing the same stuff for a simple program, or you need an IDE to be happy, that is a language failing in my opinion. The less bloated th
by anko 14y ago
If you spend your day typing the same stuff for a simple program, or you need an IDE to be happy, that is a language failing in my opinion.
The less bloated the core syntax is, the clearer your ideas are which makes your code easier to read. I'm not saying methods should be arithmetic symbols - I think short words with not much syntax around them makes for more readable code.
ruby tends to read like pseudo-code, which is a great way to express the code idea of your algorithm when you're thinking about it, and when you're reading it back later.
- gbog 14y agoFair enough, but then what we want is readability, which is related but not equivalent to conciseness. I often have discussions with colleagues about different coding idioms in Python, and I hear often "this one is better because it is less typing". I don't think this is very valid. If everything is equal, then sure, go for less typing. But using locals() instead of explicit arguments when calling a template rendering because "it is less typing" seems not strong enough an argument to me.
- anko 14y agoI totally agree, and if people think something is better because it's shorter, they are missing the point. But if all other things are equal (and they rarely are), I think shorter is better.