@robert Yeah, but every language looks like noise before you know it. I'm waiting for the day math equations become readable.

@robert I mean, it looks like a programming language. :) I find most modern procedural programming languages look kinda similar.

@PastaThief speaking purely on syntax alone I find that Ruby is the “prettiest.”

@robert I'm coming from a Haskell background, so my perspective may be a bit skewed. :)

@robert And in Haskell, the complete start-to-finish code for one implementation of the Fibonacci sequence looks like this:

fib 0 = 0
fib 1 = 1
fib n = fib (n-1) + fib (n-2)

Which is pretty hard to beat for legibility.

@PastaThief @robert
what are u talking about, (we all (know (lisp is) the (most) beautiful language))

@xxzozaxx @robert Shouldn't that be something more like:

> get 'name (max (get 'beauty (get 'syntax (remove-if (complement (= programming)) get 'type 'languages))))


[Pedantic note: The above uses 'get' to pass a return value out of the scope rather than as a simple filter test, and so would strip out all the properties (including the name) right off the bat, but I'm now 13 minutes late to leave for work for the sake of a joke 3 people will appreciate, so I'm going to stop now. :) ]

@PastaThief @robert

This is the power of lisp macro system ;)

thanks for ur joke PastaThief

@robert I mean, in Inform 7, "The Kitchen is a room, "The morning light glints between the ubiquitous boards on the windows, casting bars of light and shadow." The cleaver is in the kitchen. The pantry is west of the kitchen. The player starts in the kitchen. The spice jar is an openable container in the pantry. Some paprika is in the spice jar." is actual compileable code that will result in a video game you can play.

@nate @robert It's really a pretty amazing achievement in terms of something powerful yet readable. :)

@robert I feel nerd-bound to note that that implementation of the Fibonacci sequence is quite inefficient, though, and the efficient versions are mostly somewhat less syntactically accessible: wiki.haskell.org/The_Fibonacci

@robert @PastaThief lisp is the prettiest. Its a garbled mess of brackets but formatted right it just looks nice on the eye to me.



Well Discord never worked for me anyway. AND EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN UPPER CASE! The Romans already knew that!!!!

First sentence: "Rust is becoming a first class language in a variety of domains."

Well I'm more of an economy class of guy.

@robert That was actually one of the reasons I stopped learning Rust. I might have stopped for other reasons anyway, but I found the code itself to be a bit too ugly.

I might go back to it at some point. After all, I've been doing Kotlin recently, and that's also not a pretty language.

@loke @robert It grows on you and the more you're capable the more functional you tend to write and then it starts looking good.

@mike @loke For sure; I am already warming up to it. I will make it through the book and reserve my judgment until then. But so far, I like it a lot. Cargo seems like a great tool.

@robert @loke Rust is a great engineering and systems programming language. It's the first language that makes it worth ditching C completely.

@robert yeah, I’ve never been a fan of the double colon and -> style syntax.

@robert at the start of the year I decided to learn Rust as there was a whole lot of hype around it that sold me on it. After a little poking I came to the conclusion it was a bastardisation of C++ and Pascal and decided to cut my losses and give in. I only wanted it for hobby projects and with C++ already under my belt I couldn’t see the need to put the effort in.

@big_chip Asides my devops job, programming is a hobby of mine, so will work through the book and reserve my judgement until after I get finished with it. l think I will be better for it in the end even if I don't use it for anything.

@robert oh definitely, there is nothing to lose in learning a new skill!

@robert Of course it looks ugly with a light theme and no font ligatures 😉😏

@dnaka91 I a case for not using ligatures in programming. I do love using them though.

@robert looks pretty good to me! 😀

What is it that you don't like? Too many sigils? Somewhat explicit error handling (compared to exceptions)?

@bugaevc I am sure a lot of it is just centered in unfamiliarity for now. But there seems to be a lot of punctuation glyphs. Ok(()) for example.

@robert @bugaevc Ok(()) isn't something that's grown on me either.

It sorta makes sense when you accept that Rust insists on all arguments being provided to functions, so Ok() isn't possible when you're stating that the function completed.

I think the 'desired' Rust is to avoid side-effect functions, so you're more often in a position where you either Ok(Result) or Err::Error("Didn't work"), and never have to see it.

@Eden @robert yeah, having to write Ok(()) is unfortunate (although it makes perfect sense). There are proposals being discussed for possibly not having to write it ("Ok wrapping"), though it's unlikely anything's gonna pan out.

@bugaevc @robert Wouldn't be suprised to see a Ok!() being proposed or similar, but I think it'd suffer the same dislike from new users.

it's not ML language, so it's NOT good-looking code at all

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Board Games Social

Join others in a free (libre!) and user supported social network for board gamers and the games they love.