|
|
|
|
|
|
by levi0214
2094 days ago
|
|
|
Totally agree.Different approaches to the same thing won't add points to the language. P.S.
the 'endless method definition' is meaningless, too. > def square(x) = x * x The original reason of this proposal was: > Ruby syntax is full of “end”s. I’m paranoid that the ends end Ruby. I hope Ruby is endless. --mame (Yusuke Endoh) It sounds like "let's add a new syntax for lisp because it has too many brackets" |
|
|
You'll find wisp [0] implemented for several of the larger Schemes. Often because the rationale for adding another syntax can be more nuanced and actually benefitial than a quick joke. [1]
Whilst you're right that caution absolutely applies when modifying a language's syntax, there may be a case for it that reduces friction for the programmer. The change might have been proposed with a joke. I doubt the entire rationale ended there, however.
[0] https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/srfi-119.html
[1] https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html#rationale