[jerf]

Programming is not just a matter of slinging syntax at a problem. Good programmers need to develop a mental model of how a language works.

Needing to do geometric sequences as syntax like that is clearly a parlor trick, a marginal use case. What goes through a good programmer's mind, with experience of getting burned by such things over the years, is "If Raku implements this parlor trick, what other ones does it implement? What other numbers will do something I didn't expect when I put them in? What other patterns will it implement?"

Yes, you can read the docs, and learn, but we also know this interacts with all sorts of things. I'm not telling you why you should be horrified, I'm explaining why on first glance this is something that looks actually quite unappealing and scary to a certain set of programmers.

It actually isn't my opinion either. My opinion isn't so much that this is scary on its own terms, but just demonstrates it is not a language inline with any of my philosophies.

[donaldihunter]

Raku has features that would appeal to mathematicians. It might seem like a parlour trick to you but that doesn't make it so for everyone.

[jerf]

It's a parlor trick because something like "1, * × 2 ..." is much more sensible. Heck, it isn't even longer, if we're talking about saving keystrokes. It's still more syntax than I'm looking for from a language, but "initial, update rule, continue infinitely" does not give me that immediate "oh wtf, what other magic is going to happen with other values?" reaction I describe from trying to divine update rules from raw numbers.

It is also immediately obvious how to use this for other patterns, immediately obvious how to compose it, and just generally experiences all the benefits things get from not being special cases.