3 ms·
I think it is, but this post doesn't touch on it deeply enough. For instance, I like OO's 'object.operation' syntax; mentally it's usually closest to how your b
by queensnake 19y ago
I think it is, but this post doesn't touch on it deeply enough. For instance, I like OO's 'object.operation' syntax; mentally it's usually closest to how your brain seems to want to 'unload' itself of the tension of what you're wanting to say / do. It's the 'topic, comment' structure - considered lazy and weak (I believe) in human languages, but easy. Also, not syntax, but I like Ruby's habit of returning 'self', allows for things like 'foos.fold().spindle().mutilate()' - it rolls off the fingers.
- tuukkah 19y agoInteresting, why is the topic-comment structure considered lazy and weak? Does this apply also to topic-prominent and free-word-order languages?
- queensnake 19y agoI don't know, I read that in a blog-post (or somewhere) about the Chinese language. Wikipedia has an article on it. Given that it was Prussians who first categorized it, it might be a judgement left over from them. It's probably because it's easier, and does away with structure (shrug). Actually no, I recall it was said sort of generally, but 'weak' in the sense of lacking expressive power or something. Ach, truthfully, it's just an impression I was left with with something I read a long time ago. And it /feels/ easier, so that interpretation stuck with me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic-comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic-comment