search

wild-billy / SS99

0 stars 1 forks source link

Language Defines #3

Open wild-billy opened 9 years ago

wild-billy commented 9 years ago

Originally the stddef was pretty conservative since I assumed everyone wants to code like a real programmer™: it only had ALGOL-style AND,OR, NOT, TOGGLE and such. But then the very first PR (now deleted sadly) proposed much more aggressive syntactic sugar (giving most operators english variants), which got me thinking.

DM is supposed to be a language in the vein of Python, Ruby, and co (noob-friendly, pretty, easily readable, modern) right? So doesn't it make sense to use syntactic sugar to try to move DM closer to its intended purpose?

See languages like Ruby, Python, the Lisp family, and especially CoffeeScript (which is centered around this: see the doc http://coffeescript.org/). Many people like and appreciate them, even though they're heretical abominations by the standards of the past few decades;

Since this is meant to be a standard library serving the DM community as a whole, it'd be good to get consensus here. Specifics can be worked out later, but first of all, what are your opinions on this topic in general?

RemieRichards commented 9 years ago

now deleted sadly

I think I still have local branches :P

I suggested the ones in my PR because I thought they had a use, allowing the choice of using the operator or using the keyword instead. Also my only other main language is Python so I'm biased as fug.

optimumtact commented 9 years ago

As long as the define mess doesn't become so unmanageable it causes headaches everywhere I'd like to see more sugar

wild-billy commented 9 years ago

Yeah, the way i was thinking of keeping it clean is by only using defines that should/would/could be in the actual language if it was open-source.