From: Albert Wagner <alwagner@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T23:07:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

On Tuesday 10 September 2002 08:53 am, Christian Szegedy wrote:
> William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
> > 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,
>
> And what about dropping "if" and using only "unless"?
>
> Or what about using only a (lazy) "nor" operator? You would not need any
> if,or,and, etc... :)
>

Execellent idea!  Hey?!....we've backed up all the way to assembler.

>
> Best Regards, Christian