From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T22:13:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

Hi,

Taking "if" and "unless" as the example, the point to be made is that I
think we can make a judgment whether "unless" really contributes to the
expressiveness of a programming language, independent of whether it is a
built-in keyword in the language itself or not.

If we say yes, then in Ruby we will use both "if" and "unless", but then
because "unless" is so useful, when we code in C, we are supposed to
define the "unless macro" and make good use of both "if" and "unless".

If we say no, then there is actually no need for the keyword "unless",
just like Python which is doing fine by being minimalist in terms of
keywords.

This example is just a starting point, to show how we have been
inconsistent in deciding whether it is advantageous to have a minimalist
(in terms of keywords/verbosity) language.  It appears that our opinion
regarding whether we like "unless" or not has been arbitrarily set by the
language itself, whether it is built-in-ly defined or not.  (Oh, no, I am
not really proposing to remove "unless" from Ruby, or to really add the
"unless macro" in C.  Suppose we are to design a new language; then one of
the questions to be answered will be, is it advantageous to be minimalist
in keywords?  Do we really want both "if" and "unless"?)

Regards,

Bill
=============================================================================
Massimiliano Mirra <list@nospamchromatic-harp.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:52:12AM +0900, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
>> Finally, how does one feel if encountering the following C code:
>> 
>> #define unless(x) if (!(x))
>> 
>> Does this contribute to the expresiveness, or does it add to more
>> confusion?  By the same token, 

> Same?  `unless' isn't defined at the top of ruby sources.


> Massimiliano