The slickest language syntaxwise? [modified]
-
Im just doing a little poll here on what languages you think have the slickest syntax. and if you dont like any it would be interesting to hear some arguments on what is bad in the current languages. So pretty much, why do you like a certain kind of syntax? I personally code C#, not because I like the syntax but rather because it lets me express myself enough and its some kind of defacto standard for .net coding. I know that Ive defended the C style languages because of their syntax but I think I have to rethink this :P
MyType<OtherType<int>> var = new MyType<OtherType<int>>(1,2,3); if (a == b && c > d ) ...I cant say that I find the above very pretty. Its symbol mania... So if you guys could invent your own perfect language, how would it look? * For those of you who see code in here and are going to vote1 or cry "Do not post programming yadda yadda"... this is not a programming question.. its a question about prefference regarding syntax.. -- modified at 3:37 Thursday 21st December, 2006Pascal.
"...a photo album is like Life, but flat and stuck to pages." - Shog9
-
>>:: is very precise yes but the same reasoning could be applied to the symbols used in say Perl. that doesnt mean that its a good/clean/smart syntax. we could ofcourse have symbols for everything , eg ¤ for public and maybe £ for private, but that doesnt make it good just because it has a meaning. eg. "&&" wtf is that all about?, why did someone think "oh lets make the logical and token be &&, that is so clever.." Or are everyone happy with their elit symbol syntax just because you you have gotten so used to it?
There is a balance between CryptoPerl and Plain English, and neither extreme is ideal for a wide range of applications. You might consider "more special symbols" as "more elite" if you assing a negative meaning to elite, but that doesn't imply the native language extreme is inherently superior. I understand it more as "extensive punctuation" than "weird characters". Many real world languages have constructs where the meaning changes with punctuation, computer languages do that to a higher extent, but obviously, there is some limit on clarity.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
Oh no - that sounds like it could be a "Plain English Compiler"! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Im just doing a little poll here on what languages you think have the slickest syntax. and if you dont like any it would be interesting to hear some arguments on what is bad in the current languages. So pretty much, why do you like a certain kind of syntax? I personally code C#, not because I like the syntax but rather because it lets me express myself enough and its some kind of defacto standard for .net coding. I know that Ive defended the C style languages because of their syntax but I think I have to rethink this :P
MyType<OtherType<int>> var = new MyType<OtherType<int>>(1,2,3); if (a == b && c > d ) ...I cant say that I find the above very pretty. Its symbol mania... So if you guys could invent your own perfect language, how would it look? * For those of you who see code in here and are going to vote1 or cry "Do not post programming yadda yadda"... this is not a programming question.. its a question about prefference regarding syntax.. -- modified at 3:37 Thursday 21st December, 2006It's not that I like one type of syntax over another. It's just that I dont like concat constructions to be denoted like this: A || B || C. C'mon, this can't be good. As long as languages keep this construct out of the lanuage it's all fine by me. (BTW. This construct is used inside Data Integrator 11.5 for string concatenation)
WM. What about weapons of mass-construction? "You can always try to smash it with a wrench to fix that. It might actually work" - WillemM