|
|
|
|
|
by vacuity
543 days ago
|
|
You're being disingenuous. Your suggestion is more like if you wrote yes, that's true but this redundancy is not necessary it's there for historical reasons... without any breaks. That might be exaggerating compared to your actual position, but surely you can see that "unnecessary in this situation" doesn't imply "unnecessary overall". "Not necessary" if we're cherrypicking, sure. If my program now has no semicolons and then I write something else that behaves differently than expected, I'm going to be sad. My mental model for programming fares better when semicolons are used, so I will favor writing programs with semicolons. To me, the cost is trivial and the benefit, while minimal, outweights the cost. I consider it separate from actual boilerplate. You can disagree and use other languages, but then we're probably being moreso opinionated than divided into better or worse camps. |
|
To the point of being a straw man.
There was actually a time when neither white space nor punctuation was used andallwordswerejustruntogetherlikethis. Note that it's still possible to decipher that text, it just takes a bit more effort. Natural language is inherently redundant to a certain extent. It's mathematically impossible to remove all redundancy (that would be tantamount to achieving optimal compression, which is uncomputable).
The spaces around the vertical bars in my example were redundant because they always appeared before and after. That is a sort of trivial redundancy and yes, you can remove it without loss of information. It just makes the typography look a little less aesthetically appealing (IMHO). But having something to indicate the boundaries between words and sentences has actual value and reduces cognitive load.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity#Uncomput...