From: David.Stagner@... Date: 2002-09-11T00:32:04+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005526F986256C30_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Here's my take on it (and one definition for "least surprise")... i want to be able to say exactly what i mean when programming, to be unambiguous. This means to not only be objectively unambiguous, but *subjectively* unambiguous. In terms of Ruby (or Perl) syntax, "unless" means the same thing as "if not". It is objectively unambiguous (and probably produces identical code from the compiler). But in a *subjective* sense, "unless" is clearer than "if not" in many situations. It implies that i *expect* something to be false, rather than i expect it to be true. All higher level programming languages are syntactic sugar. They exist for the convenient understanding of human beings, not of computers. The reducto ad absurdum position for language minimalists is to simply use NAND for everything - after all, we can express all computer operations with combinations of NAND gates. This is not to say that we should try to solve every problem by adding new keywords, either (it's been tried, and called C++). To paraphrase an artist, expression is complete not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to be taken away. Is Ruby more expressive because of "unless", or less expressive? As long as the meaning is both objectively and subjectively unambiguous, i'd say it's more expressive. On a vaguely related note, i was working on a language for a while with a friend of mine. My favorite contribution to the language was a keyword i haven't seen elsewhere... "forever", to imply an infinite loop. So to create an infinite loop, you would write forever { ... } rather than while(true) { ... } I have always found while(true) to be maddeningly indirect and computer-geeky... surprising, in a bad way. The forever keyword makes infinite loops explicit. Needless to say, i approve of Ruby's syntax. William Djaja Tjokroaminata 09/10/02 09:54 AM Please respond to ruby-talk To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org (ruby-talk ML) cc: Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics Hi Dave, Again, French and English have been very well established. I am not proposing removing "unless" from Ruby, or using the "unless macro" in C. But suppose we are designing a new language; we as intelligent human beings, I think, should be able to answer the basic question, is it an advantage or a drawback to have more varieties (like in Ruby) or bare minimum (like in Python) in a programming language (which is by nature different from a natural language)? I think this is significant, because, in my opinion, Python gets its attractiveness from its minimalist principle ("there is only one way to do it"), and also in my opinion, there is no doubt that new programming language designers will emerge, and they need to learn a lesson from history, just like Ruby learns a lot from Perl, Smalltalk, Eiffel, etc. (I am not convinced, because of the Python philosophy and experience, that the answer to this is simply "it does not matter".) Regards, Bill ============================================================================= Dave Thomas wrote: > There are phrases in French that are very useful, and yet which have > no direct English counterpart. Should we: > 1. Translate them word for word, and insert them in to English? > 2. Stop the French using them? > 3. Celebrate the fact that different languages are different and get > on with the important business, which is using each effectively? > If you don't like 'unless', then by all means don't use it. If others > do, then I see no need to stop them. > Cheers > Dave --=_alternative 005526F986256C30_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Here's my take on it (and one definition for "least surprise")... i want to be able to say exactly what i mean when programming, to be unambiguous. This means to not only be objectively unambiguous, but *subjectively* unambiguous. In terms of Ruby (or Perl) syntax, "unless" means the same thing as "if not". It is objectively unambiguous (and probably produces identical code from the compiler). But in a *subjective* sense, "unless" is clearer than "if not" in many situations. It implies that i *expect* something to be false, rather than i expect it to be true.

All higher level programming languages are syntactic sugar. They exist for the convenient understanding of human beings, not of computers. The reducto ad absurdum position for language minimalists is to simply use NAND for everything - after all, we can express all computer operations with combinations of NAND gates. This is not to say that we should try to solve every problem by adding new keywords, either (it's been tried, and called C++). To paraphrase an artist, expression is complete not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing to be taken away. Is Ruby more expressive because of "unless", or less expressive? As long as the meaning is both objectively and subjectively unambiguous, i'd say it's more expressive.

On a vaguely related note, i was working on a language for a while with a friend of mine. My favorite contribution to the language was a keyword i haven't seen elsewhere... "forever", to imply an infinite loop. So to create an infinite loop, you would write

forever { ... }

rather than

while(true) { ... }

I have always found while(true) to be maddeningly indirect and computer-geeky... surprising, in a bad way. The forever keyword makes infinite loops explicit.

Needless to say, i approve of Ruby's syntax.

William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@z.glue.umd.edu>

09/10/02 09:54 AM
Please respond to ruby-talk

To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org (ruby-talk ML)
cc:
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

Hi Dave,

Again, French and English have been very well established. I am not
proposing removing "unless" from Ruby, or using the "unless macro" in
C. But suppose we are designing a new language; we as intelligent human
beings, I think, should be able to answer the basic question, is it an
advantage or a drawback to have more varieties (like in Ruby) or bare
minimum (like in Python) in a programming language (which is by nature
different from a natural language)? I think this is significant, because,
in my opinion, Python gets its attractiveness from its minimalist
principle ("there is only one way to do it"), and also in my opinion,
there is no doubt that new programming language designers will emerge, and
they need to learn a lesson from history, just like Ruby learns a lot from
Perl, Smalltalk, Eiffel, etc. (I am not convinced, because of the Python
philosophy and experience, that the answer to this is simply "it does not
matter".)

Regards,

Bill
=============================================================================
Dave Thomas <Dave@pragmaticprogrammer.com> wrote:
> There are phrases in French that are very useful, and yet which have
> no direct English counterpart. Should we:

> 1. Translate them word for word, and insert them in to English?
> 2. Stop the French using them?
> 3. Celebrate the fact that different languages are different and get
> on with the important business, which is using each effectively?

> If you don't like 'unless', then by all means don't use it. If others
> do, then I see no need to stop them.

> Cheers

> Dave

--=_alternative 005526F986256C30_=--