Re: Pythonic indentation (or: beating a dead horse)

On May 30, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:

>> Third, there is no doubt about the objective fact that Ruby code that
>> removes optional "end" keywords will be shorter, and I think  
>> practically
>> everyone agrees in principle with the idea that terseness is a  
>> virtue unless
>> there is some specific reason for being redundant.
>
> No, I don't agree.

I'm not sure which of these propositions you're disagreeing with.  I  
will assume it's the second, since the first seems (to me) to be  
virtually unassailable.

On that point, I said "practically everyone" rather than "everyone" to  
account for those people who, like you, may not agree that concision  
is a virtue.  Note that I also added the disclaimer "unless there is  
some specific reason for being redundant."  One such reason that  
advocates of "end" have put forward is clarity, and I agree that  
clarity is a good reason to be less concise.  The difference of  
opinion lies in the question of whether the "ends" make code more or  
less clear.  My own feeling is they can sometimes, but for the most  
part they just take up space.

> There is Python for those who want Python.

This is a commonly-used, but in my opinion fallacious argument that is  
primarily intended to evoke the idea that those who support this  
proposal are somehow traitors to Ruby, or not really Rubyists.  It's  
the "love-it-or-leave-it" argument.  Any time any language change is  
proposed, one could use the same argument: there is  
<language_that_contains_feature_x> for those who want feature x.  I  
want the Ruby language, but I think it might well be improved by  
making a change.

>> However, I think from the viewpoint of people who do
>> not like significant whitespace, the problem is that they know that  
>> if the
>> proposal were adopted, sooner or later they will encounter code  
>> that is
>> formatted in this way, and they will then be "forced" to deal with  
>> code they
>> find unpleasant.  In other words, someone will be forced to deal  
>> with code
>> they find difficult to work with, and those who prefer "end," quite
>> naturally, do not want to have to be the ones to deal with this.
>
> That's correct.

Then we agree on the main point.  The nub of opposition is not  
technical, but aesthetic dislike of indent-aware syntax, which causes  
a fear of having to maintain such code in the future.

steven