[7thaccount]

That's a fair reaction to the post if you haven't looked at any normal Raku code.

If you look at any of the introductory Raku books, it seems a LOT like Python with a C-like syntax. By that I mean the syntax is more curly-brace oriented, but the ease of use and built-in data structures and OO features are all very high level stuff. I think if you know any other high level scripting language that you would find Raku pretty easy to read for comparable scripts. I find it pretty unlikely that the majority of people would use the really unusual stuff in normal every day code. Raku is more flexible (more than one way to do things), but it isn't arcane looking for the normal stuff I've seen. I hope that helps.

[maleldil]

Sure, but the fact that weird stuff is possible means that someone, at some point, will try to use it in your codebase. This might be prevented if you have a strong code review culture, but if the lead dev in the project wants to use something unusual, chances are no one will stop them. And once you start...

[jjnoakes]

If you suggest a language here where nothing weird can be done, I bet someone will reply with something weird done in that language.

[christophilus]

This is true. I’ve written overly-clever, indecipherably dense code in many different languages. But some languages seem to practically encourage that kind of thing. Compare a random sampling of code from APL, Scala, Haskell, Perl, Clojure, C, and Go. You’ll probably find that average inscrutability varies widely between various language pairs.

[kqr]

Inscrutability to whom? I'm confident someone with 10 years of production Haskell experience will do a better job of reading production Haskell code than a comparable situation with C.

But then again, maybe that was what you were saying.

[rad_gruchalski]

You say like you never looked at any Perl Golf solution.