5 ms·

Try to build a class with it and you will understand.

by MrBra 11y ago

davexunit 11y ago
I've built many a class in Ruby.
- MrBra 11y ago
  > I've built many a class in Ruby. I see..... Anyway, this is elegant to me: sum ||= (1..100000).to_a.inject(:+) Maybe you have a different aesthetical sense than the rest of us. That's perfectly fine, we don't have to like the same things. But since you questioned, now I'm curious and I would like to ask you: what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax? Also if you have 2 extra minutes free, would you mind to code that same one-liner above in that language so we could compare the two?
  - giovannibajo1 11y ago
    In Python it's x = sum(range(100000)). You might say that's cheating because there is a specific sum function, but having smart builtins covering common programming cases is exactly what an elegant language offers.
    - MrBra 11y ago
      I wouldn't say it's cheating but without using that function maybe we could see more of the language syntax itself. That way we are just seeing method calling.
    - asterite 11y ago
      In Crystal we also have sum: http://crystal-lang.org/api/ http://crystal-lang.org/api/
  - sandbags 11y ago
    Having migrated to Clojure I prefer: (reduce + (range 1 100001)) but you can make yours a little nicer by relying on a Range being enumerable, hence: (1..100000).inject(:+)
    - eggy 11y ago
      I prefer J: +/>:i.100001 You could takeout the >: but then the range is 0 indexed and not 1-based: +/i.100001
      - sandbags 11y ago
        Now that is incredibly terse. "/" is the J reducing function? Or is it not comparable?
        eggy 11y ago
        It is J's 'insert' function. It inserts the verb on the left between the items on the right. I think I've see it called 'apply' for J too, and I think 'reduce' as defined in other functional languages would be correct; it's just that J calls it 'insert'.
  - davexunit 11y ago
    >what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax? The Lisp family, Scheme in particular. (define sum (reduce + 0 (iota 100000 1)))

Try to build a class with it and you will understand.

by MrBra 11y ago

Try to build a class with it and you will understand.

davexunit 11y ago

I've built many a class in Ruby.

MrBra 11y ago
> I've built many a class in Ruby. I see..... Anyway, this is elegant to me: sum ||= (1..100000).to_a.inject(:+) Maybe you have a different aesthetical sense than the rest of us. That's perfectly fine, we don't have to like the same things. But since you questioned, now I'm curious and I would like to ask you: what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax? Also if you have 2 extra minutes free, would you mind to code that same one-liner above in that language so we could compare the two?
- giovannibajo1 11y ago
  In Python it's x = sum(range(100000)). You might say that's cheating because there is a specific sum function, but having smart builtins covering common programming cases is exactly what an elegant language offers.
  - MrBra 11y ago
    I wouldn't say it's cheating but without using that function maybe we could see more of the language syntax itself. That way we are just seeing method calling.
  - asterite 11y ago
    In Crystal we also have sum: http://crystal-lang.org/api/ http://crystal-lang.org/api/
- sandbags 11y ago
  Having migrated to Clojure I prefer: (reduce + (range 1 100001)) but you can make yours a little nicer by relying on a Range being enumerable, hence: (1..100000).inject(:+)
  - eggy 11y ago
    I prefer J: +/>:i.100001 You could takeout the >: but then the range is 0 indexed and not 1-based: +/i.100001
    - sandbags 11y ago
      Now that is incredibly terse. "/" is the J reducing function? Or is it not comparable?
      - eggy 11y ago
        It is J's 'insert' function. It inserts the verb on the left between the items on the right. I think I've see it called 'apply' for J too, and I think 'reduce' as defined in other functional languages would be correct; it's just that J calls it 'insert'.
- davexunit 11y ago
  >what language in your opinion has the most elegant syntax? The Lisp family, Scheme in particular. (define sum (reduce + 0 (iota 100000 1)))